MikeC
Closed Account
New Zealand is looking at changing its flag, and apparently it might all be an attempt to railroad the country in to the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement trade pact!!
I hasten to add that as with most conspiracies about the NWO, etc., this one has no traction outside the conspiracy-vulnerable population, but it has a particular interest to me because the author was a social acquaintance of mine at university - so I feel a small amount of guilt at his subsequent descent into believing every conspiracy around!!
The current flag is:
The process is a referendum later this year to choose 1 possible alternative from these 4 (shortlisted from 40 selected from about 10,000 submissions...):
Followed next year by a "head to head" - the most popular of the 4 vs the existing flag.
As you might expect there's a fair bit of argument going on with all sorts of people slinging arguments against the proposal - ranging from the proposed designs are rubbish, people "died under the current one and it would be an insult to change it", we should become a republic first, we should change the anthem first, the process is flawed, and many more.
One objection that has completely failed to gain any traction is that by changing the flag New Zealand is actually giving up its sovereignty - or, as the author likes to call it, "Due Authority" -
Due authority is certainly a real term - but it has only a heraldic significance, in that you only get the right to bear a coat of arms if you have ancestral right (ie you inherit it), or it is granted by someone with "due authority" to make that grant which means the government - ie in NZ parlance "the Crown".
At the start of the article the author gives a link to the NZ government website link on NZ Constitutional arrangements - many of which are not documented. One of the historical links is the union jack on the current flag - however this is noted as "more symbolic" and "could be reformed without changing New Zealand's constitution in any fundamental way" - although also noting that change to it "may evoke strong feelings in the community" - which is certainly happening.
The author notes this last point in his article - apparently debunking himself without realizing it!!
I hasten to add that as with most conspiracies about the NWO, etc., this one has no traction outside the conspiracy-vulnerable population, but it has a particular interest to me because the author was a social acquaintance of mine at university - so I feel a small amount of guilt at his subsequent descent into believing every conspiracy around!!
The current flag is:
The process is a referendum later this year to choose 1 possible alternative from these 4 (shortlisted from 40 selected from about 10,000 submissions...):
Followed next year by a "head to head" - the most popular of the 4 vs the existing flag.
As you might expect there's a fair bit of argument going on with all sorts of people slinging arguments against the proposal - ranging from the proposed designs are rubbish, people "died under the current one and it would be an insult to change it", we should become a republic first, we should change the anthem first, the process is flawed, and many more.
One objection that has completely failed to gain any traction is that by changing the flag New Zealand is actually giving up its sovereignty - or, as the author likes to call it, "Due Authority" -
To be perfectly honest I cannot actually follow any of the reasoning here - the term "due authority" appears nowhere I can find in any New Zealand constitutional arrangement, and just why changing het flag affects anything is not actually explained.A change of flag means not only that we have taken a major step to removing the DUE AUTHORITY of the crown. It also means we take away the very power which enforces both the 1990 Bill of Rights Act (the closest thing NZ has to an entrenched Constitution) and the founding plank upon which the Treaty of Waitangi has meaning. It does not matter if your pro or anti monarchy but if you take away the DUE AUTHORITY of law (which includes our flag) you then open the gates of hell or to be precise the means in which John Key can legally sign the TPPA (Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement), Currently if the matter was taken to court it would undoubtedly end up at the Supreme Court
Due authority is certainly a real term - but it has only a heraldic significance, in that you only get the right to bear a coat of arms if you have ancestral right (ie you inherit it), or it is granted by someone with "due authority" to make that grant which means the government - ie in NZ parlance "the Crown".
At the start of the article the author gives a link to the NZ government website link on NZ Constitutional arrangements - many of which are not documented. One of the historical links is the union jack on the current flag - however this is noted as "more symbolic" and "could be reformed without changing New Zealand's constitution in any fundamental way" - although also noting that change to it "may evoke strong feelings in the community" - which is certainly happening.
The author notes this last point in his article - apparently debunking himself without realizing it!!
Last edited:
