Have the wheels come off St.jacinda of NZ

[Radyward]

What!!! spraying protesters including women and childrem with water outside parliament Classing all protestors as loony anti vaxers.no sign of liftimg restrictions ' quite the opposite. Polls plummeting. She is completely nightmarish tho 53 deaths is amazing. Nz is now so woke no one with any brain or indepent thought will go there to holiday / work. She is on a power trip to end all. Poor kiwis

I wonder, are you so altruistic, or actually more concerned about you and yours situation?

Interesting the point at which this has come up... but I could be the most selfish individual the world had ever seen and it wouldn't affect any of the issues. I'll play along though.

I'm not a stranded Kiwi myself if that's what you mean. It's also possible I wouldn't be aware of or bothered about the behaviour of the NZ government if I didn't have the professional background I did, so yeah I guess that's sort of about my situation. Additionally, one of the justifications I've seen for this policy (not on this thread I don't think) is because many Kiwis abroad are dual citizens- a lot of my family hold dual citizenship too and I wouldn't want them to be treated that way.

A global pandemic is not really a "just coz we feel like it" situation though, no?

It is, yeah. After all, there were many countries elsewhere in the world who, during that same pandemic, did not behave in this way. It was a choice.

In answer to the other points, stranded means NZ citizens abroad who wanted to return home and were denied the ability to do so, over a sustained period. I'm using a broad definition as I'm aware of people in very diverse circumstances. Some of them were people who only had short term visas that expired between March 2020 and now and some were people who had permanent right of residence in the countries they lived in. Some of them are people who wanted to visit NZ, some are people who wanted to return to live there.

In terms of people who could come back but not within the timeframe they wanted, I'd say once they could get back they weren't stranded but if you were eg a Kiwi on a partner visa elsewhere whose relationship had broken down and you had to wait 7 months to get an MIQ spot, you were stranded during that period.

In terms of who should've been prioritised, the fact that it could be nearly two years in and any of them had to be is in itself what concerns me. I don't know if it would've made the situation better or worse had one group been prioritised over the other, it's not really an administration issue for me.

@JackieWeaverHandforthCouncil

Is there nothing you lot won’t squeeze the word ‘woke’ into? I’m sick to fuck if hearing this word. It’s completely meaningless.

First reply shares my thoughts. OP Yabvu.

A global pandemic is not really a "just coz we feel like it" situation though, no?

It is, yeah. After all, there were many countries elsewhere in the world who, during that same pandemic, did not behave in this way. It was a choice.

Well, it's inarguably a choice, but it's not one made "just coz we feel like it". It's a decision made in light of extraordinary circumstances with a specific objective in mind, which was to prioritise the protection of the physical health of the citizens who live within the country's borders. Obviously other countries made different choices based on a vast number of reasons, including prioritising economic flows, the country's realistic ability to manage borders .

stranded means NZ citizens abroad who wanted to return home and were denied the ability to do so, over a sustained period.

To me there is a material difference between people who want to return to live and people who want to return to visit.

Anyone who wants to return for a visit is not 'coming home'. They have a home and it is in another country. I don't dispute that they may have strong family, cultural and even spiritual ties to NZ, but that is a different argument to saying it is their home. If they do not live here or intend to do so on their return, it is by definition not their current home, and they are not 'stranded' by being temporarily unable to return to it.

In terms of who should've been prioritised, the fact that it could be nearly two years in and any of them had to be is in itself what concerns me. I don't know if it would've made the situation better or worse had one group been prioritised over the other, it's not really an administration issue for me.

Well, it becomes an administration issue if you can accept that the government had genuine and well-founded reasons for their Covid management strategy.

But if you're going to paint the government's strategy as being "just cause they felt like it", I would suggest that you are not really engaging in the debate in good faith.

including prioritising economic flows and the country's realistic ability to manage borders.

This is the view of the Anti Mandate Protest
www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3HloShdRBo&ab_channel=JustReporting

LOL, love all the people commenting under the video "Wow, great to see real journalism" like they know what they're talking about.

• 'Reporter' doesn't ask a single follow-up question in response to the protestors' wide variety of wild claims
• 'Reporter' clearly supports the protest through his agreements with what the the people are saying so isn't independent
• 'Reporter' is credited with a first name only, ie can't be identified as an individual (important from the point of view of credibility)
• 'Reporter' doesn't provide a single counter-protest point of view
• 'Reporter' doesn't speak to any of the well-known extremist agitators (Neo Nazis, Qanon supporters) who might give a negative impression of the range of opinions actually being presented
• 'Reporter' runs his own channel ie isn't subject to any editorial scrutiny
• The fact that the 'reporter' isn't wearing a mask while interviewing people at close range tells you a lot

I am a New Zealand Citizen as are my children - I have the legal right to enter, leave an return to New Zealand.
As a New Zealand Citizen I have the same rights as anyone in New Zealand but I have been denied my legal rights as a citizen -whilst celebrities and non citizens have been allowed in to valuable MIQ spaces.
There are alternatives to locking up people in a hotel for 2 weeks and treating them like shit.

I am sorry but it sucks when people can not get home to see dying relatives but other "celebs" can get in.

Zero Covid and normal global life is impossible. New Zealand has to learn to live with COVID which at the moment it has not done so.
Oh and start functioning again as a member of the global community who have fought this, developed vaccines , found the best drug treatments to treat people - which NZ is benefitting from massively at the moment.
Respect Jacinda her initial actions but she is two years out of date now.

@CheekyHobson

A global pandemic is not really a "just coz we feel like it" situation though, no?

It is, yeah. After all, there were many countries elsewhere in the world who, during that same pandemic, did not behave in this way. It was a choice.

Well, it's inarguably a choice, but it's not one made "just coz we feel like it". It's a decision made in light of extraordinary circumstances with a specific objective in mind, which was to prioritise the protection of the physical health of the citizens who live within the country's borders. Obviously other countries made different choices based on a vast number of reasons, including prioritising economic flows, the country's realistic ability to manage borders .

stranded means NZ citizens abroad who wanted to return home and were denied the ability to do so, over a sustained period.

To me there is a material difference between people who want to return to live and people who want to return to visit.

Anyone who wants to return for a visit is not 'coming home'. They have a home and it is in another country. I don't dispute that they may have strong family, cultural and even spiritual ties to NZ, but that is a different argument to saying it is their home. If they do not live here or intend to do so on their return, it is by definition not their current home, and they are not 'stranded' by being temporarily unable to return to it.

In terms of who should've been prioritised, the fact that it could be nearly two years in and any of them had to be is in itself what concerns me. I don't know if it would've made the situation better or worse had one group been prioritised over the other, it's not really an administration issue for me.

Well, it becomes an administration issue if you can accept that the government had genuine and well-founded reasons for their Covid management strategy.

But if you're going to paint the government's strategy as being "just cause they felt like it", I would suggest that you are not really engaging in the debate in good faith.

What you have written here is essentially another way of saying the government did it because they felt like it. All you've done is explain why you agree with the rationale for denying access to a fundamental right of citizenship, which is fine but certainly doesn't mean anyone disagreeing with you isn't commenting in good faith.

Frankly that accusation in itself doesn't come off as being a very good faith one, but I'd like to hope that's unintentional given that your other contributions seem to have been made on the basis of honesty and wanting to participate in a constructive discussion.

New Zealand has to learn to live with COVID which at the moment it has not done so.

NZ is - literally - living with COVID. Don’t you watch the news, if you’re not actually here….?

NZ is not living in a world with covid -

it is hounding people who test positive- locking them up (FFS), vilifying them publically, naming and shaming places who dared to have a person with covid in them, and is still locked up not letting people in or out freely.

Yes I do watch the news

it is hounding people who test positive- locking them up (FFS)
Who is being locked up? Do you mean 'asking positive cases to self-isolate until well'?

vilifying them publically
The government has repeatedly REPEATEDLY said 'People are not the problem, Covid-19 is the problem'

naming and shaming places who dared to have a person with covid in them
Do you mean 'Publishing high-risk locations of interest to help people to know if they have a high risk of exposure'?

and is still locked up not letting people in or out freely.
Seven days until NZers in Australia can return freely and 20 days until literally any NZ can come here freely FGS. What are you going to complain about after that?

What you have written here is essentially another way of saying the government did it because they felt like it. All you've done is explain why you agree with the rationale for denying access to a fundamental right of citizenship, which is fine but certainly doesn't mean anyone disagreeing with you isn't commenting in good faith.

I completely disagree. A rationale (reasoning) is the opposite to a feeling (subjective and non-rational).

If you genuinely want to claim NZ's government 'denied people a fundamental right (which I think is also arguable, but I'm going to leave it aside for a moment) because they felt like it', you would also have to accept the opposing claim that other governments 'let thousands of people die because they felt like it'.

Well done for having the patience to respond to that quite unbelievable post @CheekyHobson - you’re a better woman than me.

Sorry, couldn’t resist….

@araiwa

Are people bashing her because NZ made so many other governments look useless?

Got it in one.

• currently lying on the beach in the shade of a huge pohutukawa. Life is good. NZ is officially the freest country in the world. Our PM is fecking excellent.

But on the haters go, haters gotta hate and all that .

If you're siding with the deranged mob in Wellington I genuinely fear for your mental health.

To me there is a material difference between people who want to return to live and people who want to return to visit.

Anyone who wants to return for a visit is not 'coming home'.

Voila: Fraternity and kindness.

It’s late summer here.

Spent yesterday evening over at friends - kids in and out of the swimming pool and spa pool. Adults enjoying some 🥂 and 🧀

And on Friday, we booked flight back to Ireland for July.

But sure - ‘totalitarian state’.

Voila: Fraternity and kindness.

I'm going to take a punt that this is sarcastic and you mean that I lack a sense of fraternity and kindness.

Do you not agree that there is a material difference between people who consider New Zealand their 'spiritual home' (ie have another literal home in which they could ride out the pandemic) and people for whom New Zealand is their 'literal home' (ie they have no other place where they could ride out the pandemic)?

And do you further not agree that the government has an obligation to make decisions that prioritise the material (physical, real-world) health of New Zealanders for whom New Zealand is their literal (primary) home over the desires of other New Zealanders to visit New Zealand for the purposes of maintaining their spiritual connection to the land and people there during a global health crisis?

Do you have a sense of 'fraternity and kindness' for people who live here given that the government's pandemic strategy of limiting access has been inarguably extremely successful in preventing deaths? Do you think that your desire to visit family here with a greater degree of freedom should have been prioritised at the potential cost of our lives, and the lives of the people we love (even the lives of people you love??

@CheekyHobson

Voila: Fraternity and kindness.

I'm going to take a punt that this is sarcastic and you mean that I lack a sense of fraternity and kindness.

Do you not agree that there is a material difference between people who consider New Zealand their 'spiritual home' (ie have another literal home in which they could ride out the pandemic) and people for whom New Zealand is their 'literal home' (ie they have no other place where they could ride out the pandemic)?

And do you further not agree that the government has an obligation to make decisions that prioritise the material (physical, real-world) health of New Zealanders for whom New Zealand is their literal (primary) home over the desires of other New Zealanders to visit New Zealand for the purposes of maintaining their spiritual connection to the land and people there during a global health crisis?

Do you have a sense of 'fraternity and kindness' for people who live here given that the government's pandemic strategy of limiting access has been inarguably extremely successful in preventing deaths? Do you think that your desire to visit family here with a greater degree of freedom should have been prioritised at the potential cost of our lives, and the lives of the people we love (even the lives of people you love??

I agree with that in its entirety. It's also possible, that those for whom this is an academic and professional exercise will have a different take from those for whom it's a personal exercise (or both).

I agree with that in its entirety. It's also possible, that those for whom this is an academic and professional exercise will have a different take from those for whom it's a personal exercise (or both).

I'm not sure if there's many New Zealanders for whom it's an entirely academic exercise. I have friends and family in different countries who I would love to see and miss terribly. I'm wildly excited that I'll get to see blood family members in person soon after being physically separated for two years (they are also wildly excited to be able to come). I've also borne the responsibility of supporting an extremely vulnerable/unwell parent alone while my sibling has been stuck overseas (trip cancelled due to bubble closing), which has been hard and I've have seen/felt my sibling's upset at not being able to be there too.

Despite what's been painted, I have a lot of empathy for people frustrated and saddened by the difficulties surrounding travel to New Zealand.

What I sympathise much less with is when those overseas start wildly denigrating the exact policies that have protected their loved ones in New Zealand, criticising the government for not undertaking unrealistic alternative strategies to enable their desire for free travel, and then insulting anyone who applies a degree of logic to their criticisms as "heartless", "brainwashed", "hermits", "totalitarian", "idiots" etc etc.

I understand it's an emotive issue and that people are lashing out. I have friends overseas who've expressed frustrations about it and I've empathised with them, but when I've also expressed my perspective of gratitude for the protection of the restrictions for my health-compromised family members, some of those same friends have been dismissive and rude. That's been really hurtful to me.

I do find a strain of entitlement coming through among some New Zealanders overseas now. I've seen people complaining of feeling like "second-class citizens" without any apparent recognition that the phrase is designed to denote unfairly different treatment for people living under the same circumstances.

The fact is that anyone living overseas has exactly the same rights as a New Zealander that I currently do as a New Zealander but geographical location is an obvious factor in your ability to exercise some of those rights. A young NZ citizen living overseas maintains their right to free education provided by the NZ government but they may have constraints on their ability to access it due to where they live (ie they are limited to receiving it through Te Kura online school).

Likewise NZers living outside NZ's borders but wanting to enter and spend time in NZ may find that this right has constraints on it due to measures implemented to protect the health of the people living inside New Zealand's borders (which they will also benefit from during the time they spend here).

When it comes down to it, I don't believe that one citizen's ability to travel freely to the country of their birth overrules another citizen's right to the protection of their life and health within that country's borders. The government has a core responsibility to protect the lives and health of people living here and they chose a strategy commensurate with that responsibility. It's not come without its issues, but I absolutely believe history will vindicate it, and already substantially has.

@Finallylostit

Your interpretation of NZ's public health measure are somewhat emotive and irrational.

it is hounding people who test positive
People who test positive are being asked where they have been so that any contacts can be informed in order to self-monitor for symptoms and test as required.

locking them up (FFS)
People are isolating at home. Some people were moved to an isolation facility as they required monitoring of their health.

vilifying them publically
No idea what you are on about here. The Ministry of Health website tells people not to be ashamed or embarrassed contracting Covid.

naming and shaming places who dared to have a person with covid in them
Again, very emotive and inflammatory. Places where someone who has tested positive for covid are listed as "Areas of Interest" on a govt. website. The intent is not to "shame" but rather to inform those who were at the venue at the same time as the person who tested positive, to monitor for symptoms and test if required.

locked up not letting people in or out freely.
People have been able to leave.
As mentioned multiple times, the NZ border is opening up with a five step plan. The border is expected to be fully opened by October 2022.