TONY BLAIRS ‘North Korean’Sweeping Powers are permanent in New Zealand.. Not one political crony in the cesspit of Wellington will openly share this information with the citizens of NZ.

Tony Blair was reported in the Daily Mail News as referring to ‘Tony Blair’s Stalker Squad’. He had quietly set up a Fixated Threat Assessment Centre in the UK for those that were called ‘Suspects to be detained’ without breaking the law under an extended mental health condition namely ‘fixated’ behavior.

Fixated Threat Assessment Centre is a collaboration between Scotland Yard Police, Parliamentary Police and special Mental Health Officials, where the government has the power to detain anyone whom opposed the governments narratives. Citizens whom had not committed a crime, with was no criminal evidence. Thus being a blurred line between criminal and clinical investigations.

Because of the passing of a confidentiality legislation suspects name were not known, therefore no-one knew how any detained suspect there were, or their names.  The Atlantic Times reported ‘UK Law Bans the public from Criticizing the Government’ British subjects being detailed in a mental health unit under Blair’s little known laws’. Detainee’s had little or no right to appeal, a number of people falling prey to Blairs North Korean tactics.

Outspoken MP Andrew Lansley reported “the law can be used to target anyone of religious or political belief. The Government has widened the definition of mental health intervention”.
Evening Standard 27th May 2007 was headed ‘Shambles of Blairs Plan’ referring to Blairs draconian wartime powers. Where if citizens were questioned by police and did not comply they were issued with up to a 5,000 pound fine. The Government had such sweeping powers that Police could stop and question anyone. The government analyzed more than 10,000 suspects. No-one knows how many were or are being detained in the Threat Assessment Centres.

Detainee’s that undergo mental health interventions without having a mental health disorder. Civil matters in a private court where the govt chose an advocate to represent the suspect. The suspect not knowing that a court hearing was happening, no lawyer. Suspects could be detained indefinitely.

2017 the New Zealand Government decided to pilot Tony Blairs draconian North Korean Fixated Threat Assessment Centre in New Zealand. On the July 1st 2019 under the Labour led government the Tony Blair Fixated Threat Assessment Centre became permanent in New Zealand. A collaboration between Parliamentary Police, NZ Police and special Mental Health Officials.

An OIA request was made requesting details of how many suspects have been detained in the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre in NZ. Age, ethnicity etc., between 2017 – 2020. The response from National Intelligence NZ Police to all questions where responses were requested were given a ‘Non Applicable’ response. In other words “the New Zealand public will never know”. Kia-ora North Korea.
Carol Sakey WakeUpNZ

CHOICE: Euthanasia ‘End Of Life Choice” has dangerous concepts this is a sensitive subject because people do not take into consideration that this bill was passed because it was one on the personal sensitivity on ones feelings (of course that’s natural) but not of the facts (the dangerous concepts within the Act).  Is patient taking medication?  What is happening behind closed doors (coercion and manipulation secrecy and fear- referring to age concern etc.,) Patients can choose not to be resuscitated … patients feeling unworthy, a problem to the family…

This is another Benefits vs Risks Scenario.  Politically Government saving on healthcare costs. And ignoring Hospice funding issues. Another issue being as in other countries when you introduce an Act like this it will significantly expand its boundaries ..Dangerously dehumanizing beyond humanity itself. (DON’T YOU LOVE THE WORD ‘CHOICE’??)

PUBLIC OPINION: There is huge controversy around this Euthanasia Act for doctors ‘ ethically’ eg Do No Harm. Protection of Life. The legal and practical considerations of the End Of Life Act. There is confusion regarding the terminology among the general public of NZ (Enter word CHOICE into Bill- everyone’s wants choice- become an over-riding psychological issue) When people do not have the facts and lead from the heart this can be a huge problem when it comes to risks of other peoples lives and seen as the benefit of a few (softening peoples views on a life and death matter). Majority of NZrs would not even understand or bother to analyse the legislation. Conscience Vote overriding the Facts, Concepts within the Act

ABSENCE OF LEGAL REQUIREMENTS: The High Court concluded that there are limited declarations around the interpretation of the Act. Absent of legal requirement for nurses, pharmacist and other health professionals whom may object this includes hospices.. The law does not protect the vulnerable under the Euthanasia Act. End of life depression can be treatable.

Being unworthy of life becomes a normal concept and socially acceptable as a concept. The way doctors communicate information can determine the decision making of the patient. One must consider the motivation behind seeking euthanasia a doctor cannot be sure of this they do not live the private life behind the doors of the patients personal existence. Subtle coercion and unseen influence is easily ignored, not even seen, evident.

A SLIPPERY SLOPE:  Legislatively the patient has a legal right to refuse treatment, enable do not resuscitate and proxy decision making thus reaffirming bans on assisting suicide. The Euthanasia Act sends controversial messages to those whom are suicidal. The Act may not adequately safeguard peoples lives against their wishes, The Euthanasia Act (End Of Life Choice Legislation) is a slippery slope.

One big challenge is that is complicated is where the primary doctor conscientiously objects, the replacement doctor then assumes responsibility without any long term relationship knowledge of the patient or his/her family. Even ones own personal doctor is not likely to know this, even more so with doctor, nurses shortages and more and more virtual doctors visits will take place.

DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP: Doctor-patient relationships are not what they use to be in todays post modernized world. The second doctor providing a second independent opinion has no obligation to determine coercion or undue influence at the time of the final consent to administrate the final lethal dose.

Concern have been raised concerning the Euthanasia Act’s regulatory framework. The Review committee did not receive demographic data such as age, gender, ethnicity and excluded coercion, thus making it difficult to confirm the statutory requirement of “satisfactory compliance with the requirement of this Act”.

Thus there is no way at all that patients that seek euthanasia are being coerced or not, as subtle coercion can easily be undetected. Therefore there are NO Safeguards for vulnerable people. .Socio economic status and other area’s of a patients life and dependency on family can cause a loss of dignity hence seeking euthanasia.

RISKS AND GAPS: The risks and gaps have not been measured as to benefits and risks. Since the Act was introduced legislatively we have been living in times that are hyping up the anxiety and grief especially around the most vulnerable this surely will increase the seeking of euthanasia (I just want out of here AND THIS IS THE ONLY WAY OUT). Risks and Gaps have allowed the governments determination to control NZrs lives.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE FAILURES: Mental illness and vulnerability is common in terminally ill people, depressive disorders. How do you differentiate depressive disorders from grief reactions in the case of terminal illness, its too difficult.  Mental Health services in New Zealand have fallen over when it comes to given a person an app to take home when they are crying out they want to jump off a cliff and kill themselves. Under treatment of psychiatric illness is common in New Zealand.

CANCER PATIENTS:  It is reported that 80% of cancer patients remain unrecognised and untreated for mental health issues. Cancer accounts for one of the largest reasons for euthanasia overseas thus more people seeking euthanasia. NZ Government state they prioritise reducing suicidal deaths rates whilst provisionally approving assisted suicide under this Euthanasia Act

LACK OF PALLIATIVE CARE: In 2019, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities expressed extreme concern with Canadian legislation,49 and recommended “adequate safeguards to ensure that persons with disabilities do not request assistive dying simply because of the absence of community-based alternatives and palliative care”

HOSPICE: It is highly reported that Hospice services will be significantly negatively effected because of a serious lack of government funding. The government would people seek assisted suicide than fund a persons right to dignity in dying and ongoing support for family in their time of grieving. Through Hospice they value ‘Dignity in living and Dignity in Dying.)

LEGAL PERSPECTIVE: From a legal perspective, the EoLCA poses many challenges and unanswered questions about how to ensure the process is safe for all involved. Proponents rightly point out that many of these questions should be addressed at a professional level with training programmes, clear guidelines and access to adequate support. On the other hand, opponents point to overseas evidence of underreporting and nonvoluntary euthanasia to illustrate risks of the legislation.

NORMALISING THE CONCEPT OF PREMATURE DEATH AS BENEFICIAL: Based on overseas experience, once legalised, euthanasia eligibility criteria will be challenged, and are likely to be expanded over time. Some regard this as an egalitarian progression towards a better future that includes a ‘right to die’, while others view this as an unacceptable risk of the EoLCA. .(Euthanasia Legislation)

NON-VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA: Administration of a life-ending substance to a patient who is unable to consent due to a medical condition..

NZ MEDICAL ASSOCIATION: Considers that voluntary euthanasia is unethical, but supports a persons pain relief which can hasten a patients death which is determined as ethical. There is an acknowledgement that a patients autonomy may be compromised without a doctors knowledge as to what happens in a patients private life behind closed doors, therefore the ACt does not adequately safeguard vulnerable peoples lives. There could also be poor symptom management and broken communication between the doctor and the patient.

THE REFERENDUM (DOCTORS): There was little room for doctor to abstain yet they are the ones that are holding the needle (the lethal dose). Similar to the nation wide jab of COVID 19 jab.DO NO HARM is ignored as the government goes along with the Risks vs Benefits. The Risks have been also ignored in David Seymour’s Euthanasia Act. CHOICE has embedded itself in people hearts as they had their choices taken away. I personally believe this is of serious concern. (The word CHOICE  used for coercion and indoctrination of this legislation). What the eye does not see the heart does not grieve over.

HOW MANY VULNERABLE LIVES ARE PUT AT RISKS BECAUSE OF THIS EUTHANASIA LEGISLATION AS TO THOSE THAT BENEFIT FROM THE LEGISLATION? If this is too difficult to answer then this should be of very serious concern.  There is nothing more precious than life itself. It is fact that people have been told they only have 6 months to live by health professionals and have lived much longer and have been able to live and die in dignity with the right care, love and respect.  As we see more and more fragmented families this becomes a real issue around the seeking of Euthanasia, the premature ending of ones life.

DATA IN AND DATA OUT: Often, a patient is considered terminally ill when his or her estimated life expectancy is six months or less, under the assumption that the disease will run its normal course based on previous data from other patients.

DETERMINATION OF ONES LIFE SPAN: My father was given 6 months to live he had a brain tumour, cancer on the lungs he lived for over  a year. He was surrounded by family in his own bed at home. Hospice sat with us for 24 hrs as he finally passed away.

DEATH IN DIGNITY AND DIGNITY IN DYING: When a person is treated with dignity, love and respect there is a reason to want to live, a reason not to seek a needle with the legal dose injected into your body. Hospice made sure pain killers were administered adequately. They also enquired about our families needs. I have been involved with Hospice helping people write their ‘end of life’ story times, of times gone by. (The Government would rather fund premature death than dignity in living and dignity in dying)

HEART VS HEAD: The ruling from the heart (conscientious vote) ignoring the dangerous concepts this is exactly how this Bill was passed. People calling upon their very real emotional grief of watching loved ones dying, a natural grief, is normal… but this  ignores the very serious risks that vulnerable people are being put in when it comes to life and death decisions.  I acknowledge how the heart grieves in these life and death situations but should we ignore the dangerous concepts the risks it puts other human lives in?

THE DANGEROUS SLIPPERY SLOPE:  YES, I call this a slippery slope, and another psychological coercion by  the government in the word ‘CHOICE’ (End Of Life ‘CHOICE’ Act). And no-one speaks out, everyone is silent. SILENCE IS CONSENT to be indoctrinated and coerced even at he end of ones life.

NOTE: I followed this Bill throughout and much earlier on could see the dangerous conceptions within the End of Life Choice Bill (legislative Act). I was saying exactly the same then as I am saying right now. ITS A VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE and we should never ignore it.

Carol Sakey

EXCLUSIVE: MOH says Kiwis with COVID-19 can now be eligible for euthanasia..NZ euthanasia expansion.. By The Defender.

OIA REQUEST: An Official Information Act reply to The Defender, from the Ministry of Health, which says that patients with COVID-19 could be eligible for euthanasia, has left National MP Simon O’Connor disappointed but not surprised.

HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS RAISE CONCERNS:  In November The Defender wrote to the New Zealand Ministry of Health (MOH) to ask some important questions about the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide in New Zealand. In light of the serious deficiencies in the End of Life Choice Act (EOLCA), and concerns that have been raised by healthcare professionals, we felt it was crucial to put some urgent questions to the MOH.

COVID-19 AND ASSISTED DYING: In our Official Information Act (OIA) request we asked the following question: “Could a patient who is severely hospitalized with Covid-19 potentially be eligible for assisted suicide or euthanasia under the Act if a health practitioner viewed their prognosis as less than 6 months?”

TOOLS  TO RESOLVE SERIOUS CRISIS: There were several reasons why The Defender wanted to seek clarity from the MOH about this issue.  Firstly, New Zealand is currently described as being in a precarious position when it comes to COVID-19 and hospital resources. In light of this, it would not be hard to envisage a situation in which a speedy and sizeable rise in COVID-19 hospitalisations could result in pressure to utilize euthanasia and assisted suicide as tools to resolve such a serious crisis.

WARNING OF CAUTION: Overseas commentators have raised the prospect of these kind of unethical motivations since early in this pandemic.  Last year’s tragic case of the elderly Canadian woman who had an assisted suicide to avoid another COVID-19 lockdown highlights exactly why caution is warranted in relation to COVID-19 and euthanasia.  “The lack of stringent safeguards in the EOLCA raised red flags with us. Could a patient with COVID-19 find their way into the eligibility criteria? And, if so, what serious risks would this pose to the already often-vulnerable elderly members of our communities?” says The Defender editor Henoch Kloosterboer.

CRITERIA FOR ASSISTED DYING: The MOH responded to our OIA request on Tuesday (7th of December, 2021). Their reply to The Defender started on a more promising note: “There are clear eligibility criteria for assisted dying. These include that a person must have a terminal illness that is likely to end their life within six months.” But then their response becomes more disturbing (emphasis added):

THE ATTENDING PRACTITIONER:   “A terminal illness is most often a prolonged disease where treatment is not effective. The EOLC Act states eligibility is determined by the attending medical practitioner (AMP), and the independent medical practitioner.”

SERIOUS CONCERNS: This raises serious concerns. Firstly, there is nothing concrete about the phrase “most often”, in fact, its inclusion in this specific context clearly seems to suggest that the MOH considers the definition of terminal illness to be subjective and open to interpretation.

DETERMINATION OF QUALIFIED TERMINAL ILLNESS: The very next sentence seems to back this up. It clarifies that the MOH considers the attending medical practitioner (AMP) and the independent medical practitioner to be empowered by the EOLCA to make the determination about what does and doesn’t qualify as a terminal illness.  “In light of this vague interpretation, it is reasonable to suggest that COVID-19 could be classified as a ‘terminal illness’ depending on the prognosis of the patient and the subjective judgments of the AMP and independent medical practitioner. This feels like we’ve been sold one thing, and been delivered another.” says Kloosterboer.

ELIGIBILITY:  the final paragraph the MOH put this issue beyond doubt when they state (emphasis added): “Eligibility is determined on a case-by-case basis; therefore, the Ministry cannot make definitive statements about who is eligible. In some circumstances a person with COVID-19 may be eligible for assisted dying.”

INFORMED DECISION: Detail from the Ministry of Health’s response to the OIA request, 7 December 2021. If you examine the eligibility criteria for assisted suicide and euthanasia, as stated on the MOH website, it becomes easier to see how, given the right circumstances, a COVID-19 diagnosis could qualify:  aged 18 years or over a citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand  suffering from a terminal illness that is likely to end their life within six months in an advanced state of irreversible decline in physical capability experiencing unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that the person considers tolerable competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying

PROLONGED ILLNESS: It seems to us that the only possible protective factor here, and it’s an extremely flimsy one, is that all of this hinges on the tenuous grounds of how the phrase ‘terminal illness’ is interpreted. In particular, whether or not the AMP and independent medical practitioner are willing to hold firm to the MOH’s suggestion to us that a terminal illness is a “prolonged disease”. Even then, the term ‘prolonged disease’ is still extremely fraught due to its highly subjective nature. Who is to say that a medical practitioner who considers an illness which lasts longer than a fortnight to be a ‘prolonged disease’ isn’t actually correct in making such a determination?

RAISING OF SERIOUS QUESTIONS: The End of Life Choice Act offers no clarity or robust safeguards that would put this matter beyond doubt, in fact it does just the opposite, leaves the door wide open for abuse. MP Simon O’Connor expressed s as to the expansion of the new law less than a month after it came into force.  “New Zealanders who voted in the referendum in 2020 did not anticipate this law could be used for COVID19 patients”.

THE WORDING OF THE LEGISLATION: The wording of the law The wording of the law was always deliberately broad and interpretable, placing far too much into the judgement of the doctor.” He also said that this development raises serious questions about the problems in the EOLCA.

VERY TIMELY: “The  timely demonstration of how badly drafted the law is. When you consider the lack of key safeguards, and the risky shroud of secrecy that the EOLCA has thrown over the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide, you can see that those of us warning about this Act shouldn’t have been dismissed so flippantly,” says Simon  O’Connor.  The implications of this are extremely serious. Not simply because of the potential threat COVID-19 poses to our ill-equipped NZ healthcare system, or the fact that vulnerable elderly people are the most affected by the ravages of this illness.

LACK OF TRANSPARENCY: There is also the fact that an unacceptable lack of transparency has been built into the EOLCA which will cloak all of this in a dangerous veil of secrecy that prevents robust public scrutiny. In a nutshell, the poorly considered structure of the EOLCA has now made the COVID-19 pandemic potentially even more dangerous for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand.

#DefendNZ,  were calling on the Ministry Of Health to take urgent action to  ensure that the End Of Life Choice Act cannot be used to provide assisted suicide or euthanasia to patients in New Zealand. Defend NZ had created a petition to send to Parliament calling for urgent amendments to the law including required detailed reporting and required independent witnesses, among other things, and were asking concerned citizens to sign and share it.

LINK   https://www.defendnz.co.nz/news-media/2021/12/19/exclusive-euthanasia-expansion-moh-says-kiwis-with-covid-19-can-now-be-eligible

Researched by Carol Sakey

23^rd October 2009 The Mornington Methodist Church members were planning to ring their church bell 350 times over an hour, this was just one od six Dunedin Bells that would ring to support the 350^th Day of Action. More than 4,000 events were taking place around the world on October 24^th 2009 to encourage people to reduce their carbon emissions. 600 leaflets were distributed around a neighborhood in Dunedin. 350 Dunedin collective members groups as diverse as school pupils, musicians, artists, cyclists and skateboarders collaborated Dunedin’s Day Of Action to encourage Dunedin residents to reduce their fossil fuels.(Otago Daily Times 23/10/2009)

16^th October 2008 (Pacific Scoop News) Ringing the Alarm on Climate Change (Release Anglian Church of Aotearoa. Church bells tolled up and down NZ on Saturday 24^th October 2009. This was not a ‘civil defense emergency warning’. The church bells rang for the ‘350 Day’- global pointer to cut ‘carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere’. This was promoted by three Anglican Bishops. The Auckland Synod resolution was initiated by its Diocesan Climate Change Action Group, of which the convenor was Dr Richard Milne a Population Health Scientist. Milne said, at the time “remind church communities and individuals of the need to live more sustainably, to reduce their carbon footprint. He added “It’s particularly important, to make this statement before our government enters negotiations at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December”. The church gave a link to their website for further information on theology, science, economics, politics of global climate change (The link for the Diocesan Climate Change Action Group)

November 2009, at the Catholic Bishops Conference ‘Church leaders urged bolder action on climate change’  calling “political leaders to strive for a strong commitment by the international community at the Copenhagen Climate Summit” for the strongest commitment by the international community at the Copenhagen Summit. October 2009 following a meeting with the Prime Minister of NZ the church leaders from the Anglican, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist Churches and the Salvation Army churches released a statement outlining the environmental & economic impacts of climate change, and the importance of immediate action by the whole community. They applauded the steps that the past and present govt had taken, but felt that the urgency of the situation is not sufficiently understood, they reported. Catholic Bishop John Drew Wellington said “The world is perched on the brink of a Kairos moment”, described as a moment in the scripture  that is a moment of opportunity, grace and truth”

Bishop Drew said that “Scientists warn us that the “window of opportunity for change is very narrow”. This “narrow window of opportunity, has been heard and noted many times”. 14^th September 2022, 13 years later the World Economic Forum reports that the “UN announced “We have a narrow window of opportunity to create a better future for everyone”. They were referring to ‘global society lurching from crisis to crisis. All the church leaders in NZ joined the World Council of Churches as they called ALL churches throughout NZ to ring their church bells at 3pm Sunday 13^th December, midway through the UN Summit in Copenhagen, to call people to prayer and action in the face of climate change

The ‘narrow window of opportunity’ repeats itself time and time again. The UN Website 20^th March 2023 14 years later, after the Church in NZ announced the “narrow window of opportunity. A major Un Report referring to the IPCC Greenhouse Emissions, a human caused climate change yet another “narrow window of opportunity” is reported by the UN. 7^th November 2022 at a High Level UN Meeting the UN Secretary General announced “We need all hands on deck for faster, bolder climate action. A window of opportunity remains open, but only a narrow shaft of light appears”. A Headline Statement for Policymakers worldwide by the IPCC 4^th October 2023 :This is a rapidly closing window of opportunity. Climate Home News 4^th October 2023 ‘ a course correction on COP28 negotiating table refers to the “Global  Community and the window of opportunity is rapidly closing”. 23^rd April 2023 ‘Off the Charts Records’ Has Humanity finally broken. “However, a tiny window of opportunity remans open to tackle global warming”

Yes the ‘Narrow Window Of Opportunity” has been repeated time and time again. What is this window of opportunity, I have asked myself, through the many hours and years of research I have done? I personally believe “it’s the destruction of the Global Free-market Enterprise Economy’. The exploitation of corporate multi-stakeholderism of Sovereign Nation States. The implanting of destroying Nation States to bring about a One World Governance under what is called Globalization’. The window of opportunity for Multi-stakeholder  Corporate wealth.. the Corporate Capture of the worlds economy, the massive transformation of populations throughout the world.. ‘The WEF/UN Great Reset’

The capitalist marketplace that is characterized by the dominance of hierarchical bureaucratic corporations. As Schwab announced to the world “Time for a Great Reset 3^rd June 2020, he was then referring to the Global COVID crisis as n opportunity to build more sustainable systems. People Planet and Profit. A very wealthy profit for self interested corporations, large businesses. The Austrian Institute reported on 2^nd June 2022 “The narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine and reset our world, we need a better capitalism. Namely ‘Corporate Capitalism’. Corporate Capture

The Globe and Mail reported “Its Time For A Massive Reset of Capitalism 3^rd June 2020. The pandemic represents a “rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimaging and reset our world”. (Not Our World But Their World). Harvard Business Review ‘Making Stakeholder Capitalism a Reality.22^nd January 2020, spurred by Climate Change (Financing and Investing). As they report that ‘Larry Fink ‘BlackRock’, the worlds largest investor with $7 trillion in asset management. Reporting that his CEO’s received their annual letter “placing long term sustainability at the centre of his investment approach”, as the World Economic Forum kicks off the week as they update their manifesto, for the first time since 1973 saying “business must be the stewards of the environment, global supply chains referring to sustainable shareholders”

13^th June 2019  (6 months prior to the global pandemic) the World Economic Forum and the UN signed an official partnership memorandum. This would give much more political clout and wealth for the UN to achieve its Global Development Goals of Agenda 2030. This being a trade off, as the corporations represented by the WEF would then be the whisperers in the ears of UN Agencies. The enabling of a One World Corporate captured Governance

In the wake of the COVID 19 Pandemic, transnational corporations sought to cement their control of the global governance, ensuring they served the interests of large businesses, corporations- for a very wealthy profit rather than the wellbeing of humanity. Transnational corporations are directly responsible for many global crises we face. As we view Corporate Capture in various forums throughout the world. This is a governance, the evolution of a parallel ‘privatized multilateralism’ made up of a myriad of ‘multistakeholder’ bodies.

The World Economic Forum has developed, pushed for privatization of global governance for decade. The ‘Great Reset’ is just the latest of the gradual corporate takeover of global institutions, such as the UN and other international bodies, that take critical decisions over the governance of global common goods such as food, water, health, internet and others.

Civil Society Groups in 2021 produced an open letter opposing plans for a Big Tech dominated Body for Global Digital Governance’ (Source of Information ‘Transnational Institute’). As for the churches supporting, ringing the bells in NZ, many have stated that “Christians have a particular duty to address the moral and human implications of climate change’. The Pope declared heavy criticism at climate deniers and delayers.  He called them “skeptics and irresponsible” (CNN 4^th October 2023)

However George Pell saw climate science as a dangerous religious dogma  (The Guardian 13^th January 2023). The Guardian reported that Cardinal George Pell left a legacy of ‘climate science denial’ which meant in his later years he became more distanced from his position in the Catholic Church. Cardinal Pell, for decades in newspaper columns and speeches “popularized climate denial, dismissed global heating, branded environmentalists as hysterical and in the grip of a pseudo-religion”. In one 2011 interview with the Catholic media Pell said “In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel Gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions”. Pell often announced that “Climate change was mostly natural and the science is not settled”

Professor Tim Stephens an International Environmental Law expert wrote that “ Pell was prolific, wrote many climate denial pieces. He said that Pell was “ caught up in the right wing cultural view of climate change being a hoax or a conspiracy”. Cardinal Pell died in Rome aged 81, he used his position as Australia’s most senior Catholic to forcefully reject the Climate  Crisis, the Guardian reported. On the eve of the Paris Climate conference in 2015, the former prime minister Kevin Rudd publicly challenged Pell, as Cardinal Pell was climbing the ranks of seniority in the Vatican. Rudd said “It was no small matter, that Pell was muddying the ethical waters with his radical climate skepticism”. But this did not stop Cardinal Pell criticizing the so called climate science”. Like all those real scientists whom publicly speak out about this Climate Alarmism, and the IPCC flawed, corrupt Assessment Reports, they are character assassinated, just as Cardinal Pell was. Public debate is soon shut down time and time again.

However Pope Francis in 2015 released his encyclical on the environment- Laudato Si- calling for global action on climate change to mitigate the risk of serious consequences for ecosystems and humanity. Forbes reported on 9^th December 2020 that ‘Pope Francis with his Corporate Titans were to make Capitalism More Fair”.” Corporations to be Holier than thou”. Pope Francis’s virtual signaling to global populations worldwide. As he ignored the rest of society, jumped on the bandwagon of Lady Lynn De Forester Rothschild’s Corporate bandwagon. Yes, the pope spoke about the hundreds of millions of people in extreme poverty, he talked the talk but did not walk the walk. Pope Francis, the Vatican partnered with the Rothschild ‘Council for Inclusive Capitalism’ that boosts over $10.5 trillion in assets under management, companies with more than $2.1 trillion of market capitalization and 200 million workers in over 163 countries.

Members of the Council for Inclusive Capitalism’ calling themselves ‘Guardians’, these are top CEO’s of Corporations that include CEO’s of Mastercard, Dupont, Salesforce, Rothschild Inclusive Capital Partners, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, BP, Bank of America, the Rockefeller Foundation. These are the world’s top wealthiest elite. Key players of the World Economic Forum. The Corporate Capture of the World. Corporate Governance. Digital Governance. A One World Governance to control ALL populations worldwide.

Those church bells that tolled up and down NZ in 2009, should have been ringing for Corporate Alarmism, warning the people of New Zealand what was about to come. Communist Degrowth. Destruction of democracy, democratic states, totalitarian. The loss of the Free-market Enterprising economy- the freedom to choose. Replacing this for a Stakeholder Capitalism where peoples freedoms are seriously at stake. Today we have Eco Churches in NZ funded supported by Local Government.

Auckland Council website that refers to the WEF data. Klaus Schwab ‘4^th Industrial Revolution’. Where did the caring churches of humanity go? Earlier this year I emailed the main churches in NZ requesting a ‘day of prayer’ for those jab injured, jab dead” and zilch.

The World Council of Churches that have collaborated with Governments, Authorities on mandatory COVID 19 Jabs, and the implementing of Climate Alarmism. The suffering of Eco Anxiety is reported by National Health in the UN, of the young and thevunerable. I have included my personal thoughts, and evidential information to share with you, for your response.

Links:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/12/09/pope-francis-partners-with-corporate-titans-to-make-capitalism-more-inclusive-and-fair-is-this-for-real-or-just-corporate-virtue-signaling/?sh=1ee896254c7b

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/13/george-pell-saw-climate-science-as-a-dangerous-religious-dogma-in-the-end-his-hardline-stance-held-the-church-back

https://www.tni.org/en/article/the-corporate-capture-of-global-governance-and-what-we-are-doing-about-it

https://hbr.org/2020/01/making-stakeholder-capitalism-a-reality

https://austrian-institute.org/en/blog/do-we-need-a-great-reset-or-more-capitalism/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-its-time-for-a-massive-reset-of-capitalism/

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/human-development-falling-behind-un-report-countries-global

https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/church-bells-peal-climate-action

https://pacific.scoop.co.nz/2009/10/ringing-the-alarm-on-climate-change/

https://www.catholic.org.nz/news/media-releases/church-leaders-urge-bolder-action-on-climate-change/