I was just finishing up dinner with my two oldest kids. My wife was feeling unwell and feeding our four-week-old baby in bed. I had just gotten the icecream out for the kids when the doorbell rang.
I opened the door to see a number of police officers outside. They served me with a search warrant under Section 6 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. Half a dozen armed police officers swarmed in the front door (holstered sidearms only) as several more ran around the sides of the house.
So a dozen armed officers raid the house of this dad. Why?
The warrant claimed they had reason to believe I was in possession of a prohibited magazine fitted to a “.22RL lever-action rifle. Blued metal, brown wooden stock.” The officer told me I had posted about it online, which I had—in my public written submission against the Firearms Amendment Act passed last year.
So on the basis of a select committee submission, they send a dozen armed officers to his place.
It was no longer in my possession when the police raided my house. They departed empty-handed after turning the place inside out for ninety minutes and left me with my firearms and a visibly shaken wife who broke down in tears.
The Police could have phoned him up and asked if he still had it. They could have done many many things short of a dozen armed officers raiding him.
This is for a lever-action .22LR that’s designed to hit paper or be used to hunt bunnies. What happened to going after the “weapons designed to kill people” as the police minister Stuart Nash has claimed?
The Police really have a warped priority. And was he targeted due to the fact he has been a critic of the law change?
Did @NZPolice really rely on evidence given to a select committee to obtain a search warrant? Surely they're not that stupid? And issuing Officers get training in privilege, right? Parliamentary Privilege won't come up a lot but they should know it exists.https://t.co/i6kbKr1vqnpic.twitter.com/JhknMWvniK
Graeme Edgeler points out the Police may be in trouble if they acted on the basis of a privileged select committee submission. They deny it was on the basis of that, but it seems hardly credible that it wasn’t.
Students of history may be interested in this 2006 letter from the Fijian Commissioner of Police to the NZ Commission of Police, asking him to reconsider arresting Commodore Frank Bainimarama, when he visited NZ, before he launched his coup.
I wonder if Howard Broad consulted Ministers before he made his decision not to act.
It says much about the health of our democracy that such a thing should come to pass. That two men holding radically divergent views were able to meet and drink coffee together without descending into loud and rancorous disagreement. That one of those men was Sir Roger Douglas says even more.
To say I was surprised that the architect of the economic changes which transformed New Zealand between 1984 and 1990 wanted to meet with me would be to understate the case considerably. For most of my adult life I have, one way or another, fought and criticised what came to be called “Rogernomics”. Not just privately, down at the pub with my lefty mates, but publicly, in print and on the airwaves. I even helped to form, and stood as a candidate for, NewLabour – the political party whose whole raison d’être was to roll Rogernomics back. And yet, here was Sir Roger Douglas on the other end of the line, inviting me to assess his latest ideas for improving New Zealand – kanohi ki te kanohi – over coffee.
I think it says a lot about New Zealand, and about both men, that two people with such radically different views can talk political ideas over coffee.
That ideas still matter to this spry 81-year-old was obvious from the moment we settled into a quiet corner of the Orvieto Café on Auckland’s Mt Eden Road. He had brought with him an impressive stack of papers – each containing page-after-page of carefully calculated figures. And the way he argued from those figures swept me back more than 30 years to the “Great Economic Debate” initiated by Labour Party president, Margaret Wilson. That debate had become an urgent necessity as it began to dawn on Labour’s membership that the government of David Lange and his frenetic Finance Minister was going to be remembered for something more than declaring New Zealand nuclear-free.
This is how I described Sir Roger’s defence of his new Goods & Services Tax at the Otago-Southland regional conference of the Labour Party in April 1985:
“Douglas is messianic. He scrawls figures on the blackboard with violent energy, barking out his arguments like a Parade Sergeant. There is an aura of absolute conviction about the man that is taking its toll on the waverers. Will they hold?”
Well, we all know the answer to that question. Labour’s GST is internationally famous for being the only value-added tax that left the government responsible for its introduction as – if not more – popular after its implementation than before.
Sir Roger’s clean GST is one of his best legacies.
It is precisely in this area that the present government is so woefully deficient. Neither in Labour’s ranks, nor NZ First’s, nor the Greens, is there a “policy aggressor” remotely equal to Sir Roger. Jacinda Ardern is every bit as effective as David Lange at conveying emotion – better even. But, just ask Jacinda to set forth a compelling case for “transformational” change in any of the policy areas dear to her heart: child poverty; affordable housing; climate change; and she is reduced to ums and ahs and buzzwords. It’s embarrassing.
The second defeat, on 12 December last year, saw the party slump to its worst performance since 1935.
But Ms Long Bailey, who has confirmed she is bidding to succeed Mr Corbyn as leader, accused the party of failing to rebut attacks on him by the media.
She said: “I’d give him 10 out of 10, because I respect him and I supported him all the way through.
One can only hope she wins, if she goes around saying Corbyn was a 10/10.
The latest approval poll on Corbyn had 21% approving and 71% disapproving of his performance.
Even those who voted Labour in 2017 had only 43% approve and 52% disapprove.
A group aiming to stop a national tour by a New Zealand-based “psychic” is challenging the ethics of the host venues.
The New Zealand Skeptics group has emailed all the venues booked for the tour of spiritual medium Jeanette Wilson, in a bid to shut it down.
New Zealand Skeptics’ chair Craig Shearer told Morning Report the tour was “dangerous” because Ms Wilson was claiming to heal people of illnesses, by talking to spirit surgeons.
“You often have psychics touring the country doing entertainment-style shows, and they’re doing things we call ‘cold reading’ where they’re sort of attempting to … pretending to contact dead people.
“Unfortunately, it’s for entertainment and unfortunately there are people in the audience who have lost loved ones, they are grieving and we think that’s pretty sad.”
Mr Shearer said the series planned by Ms Wilson was at a different level, as she was claiming to be able to talk with “spirit surgeons on the other side”, and heal people of illnesses they have.
“We think that’s pretty dangerous as it seems there’s no evidence she can actually do this, so we would really like to shut this down.”
He said people with serious illnesses might put stock on her healing rather than visiting a qualified doctor.
“There’s also financial harm through people having to pay money to have this sort of … thing done to them.”
Mr Shearer said it was fair enough that people who wanted to pay to attend such events, should be free to do so, but society should be protecting vulnerable people from the mental and financial harm that might arise from them attending these events.
The group had emailed all venues hosting the tour, but so far no city councils or venues had pledged to take any action to stop the show.
Mr Shearer said only one had responded so far, to say it had no control over what was booked.
“My response to that would be, they really need to look at their ethics, and ask if it’s really ethical to promote this sort of behaviour at their venues where people are actually going to be harmed.
“We’ve also talked to the Auckland City Council who say they can’t shut down a show unless something unlawful is happening.
Interesting that a couple of right wing Canadians have their booking cancelled, but a fraudster who claims she can faith heal is okay.
Personally I’d allow both. If people want to pay money to be conned, that’s their choice. But it is the double standards that grate me.
Yes, global warming is real and human-caused, but her vision of climate change as the end of the world is unsupported. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that by the 2070s, the total effects of climate change, including on ecosystems, will be equivalent to a reduction in average income of 0.2 to 2 per cent. By then, each person on the planet will be 300 to 500 per-cent richer.
The world is ending – oh no its not.
We don’t emit CO2 with malign intent. Indeed, it is a byproduct of giving humanity access to unprecedented amounts of energy.
Just a century ago, life was back-breaking. Plentiful energy made better lives possible, without having to spend hours collecting firewood, polluting your household with smoke, achieving heat, cold, transportation, light, food and opportunities. Life expectancy doubled. Plentiful energy, mostly from fossil fuels, has lifted more than a billion people out of poverty in just the past 25 years.
That is not evil – it is quite the opposite.
And a sudden end to such fuels would in fact kill and impoverish millions.
Ms. Thunberg believes that climate change means people are dying, but the fact is that weather-related disasters just a century ago killed half a million people each year. Today, despite rising temperatures but because of less poverty and more resilience, droughts, floods, hurricanes and extreme temperatures kill just 20,000 people each year – a reduction of 95 per cent. That is a morally commendable achievement.
An inconvenient fact.
Ending global fossil-fuel use by 2028 is a flawed plan because green energy is simply not in a place in its development where it can take over what fossil fuels leave behind. A hard by-hook-or-crook transition would cause a real, global catastrophe, sending most of us back into back-breaking poverty. That’s why developing countries, especially, want more fossil-fuel power, not less; they want to lift more people into comfortable lives.
Does anyone really think China and India will choose sending millions of their citizens back into poverty?
Finally, Ms. Thunberg tells us that if we don’t cut off fossil fuels by 2028, the young generation will never forgive us. This, however, is reflective of a blinkered first-world view. When the United Nations asked 10 million people around the world what they prioritize, they highlighted five issues: health, education, jobs, corruption and nutrition. In sum, they care about their kids not dying from easily curable diseases, getting a decent education, not starving to death.
Climate came last of 16 choices. That’s not because it is unimportant, but because for most of humanity, other issues are much more pressing.
They don’t march in the third world for climate change. As Lomberg says more important is health and education etc.
The Iranian missile strike on US bases in Iraq was a calibrated event intended to cause minimal American casualties, give the Iranians a face-saving measure and provide an opportunity for both sides to step back from the brink of war, according to senior US officials in Washington and the Middle East.
White House officials were bracing as early as Tuesday morning for Iran to respond to the US killing last week of Qasem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force.
By Tuesday afternoon, US officials said they knew that Iran intended to strike at US facilities in Iraq, although it wasn’t immediately clear exactly which targets they would choose.
The early warning came from intelligence sources as well as communications from Iraq, which conveyed Iran’s intentions to launch the strike, officials said.
Very smart from Iran. By telling Iraq they ensure the US will be told, and hence casualties minimised while still showing a response. Hence makes it less likely to escalate.
Also Iran is being smart by now demanding the US get out of the Middle East. That is more important to them than killing a few people, and its what Trump wants also.
Already Iraq has effectively been pushed towards Iran, which is a huge gain for them.
The Queen is said to be “deeply upset” by Prince Harry and Meghan’s announcement they’re stepping down as senior members of the royal family.
A source told The Sun the couple’s statement had not been cleared by anyone, and was considered a “declaration of war on the family”.
“There is fury over how they’ve done this without any thought for the implications for the institution. The Queen is deeply upset. The Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge are incandescent with rage,” the source said.
Announcing to your family via press release you are moving overseas and abandoning your duties is horrifically crass.
When Harry first started dating Meghan Markle, I was a huge fan. I liked her as an actress on Suits. She seemed a breath of fresh air. And her father and setp-sister were such terrible people, I was 100% on Team Meghan as she had to endure their publicity antics.
I also thought it was a great look for the Royal Family with the two grandmothers of Archie being the Queen and Doria Ragland, a black social worker.
But after their wedding my views changed. Still totally on her side against her loathsome relatives, but stuff such as pronouncing you’ll only have two children due to climate change and then flying off on private jets. Or refusing to even name the godparents. Or having the bodyguards scare people off at Wimbledon. Or turning their Africa trip into a sob story about herself etc etc.
And now she seems to have caused what was the most popular member of the Royal Family to announce he is semi-leaving them, without even telling them in advance.
“After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution,” the post began.
Self-describing your new role as progressive is very wanky.
“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.
What does financial independence mean? They’ll both take up full time jobs? Or they’ll sell access and influence?
Anyway isn’t it time New Zealand had a New Zealander as Head of State, rather than a member of a family that is so dysfunctional they communicate with each other via press release. They could almost qualify for an appearance on the Jerry Springer show.
It started in March 2019 when my wife was
told she had to lose 20 kg. Her knees
were being replaced and her specialist told her that the prognosis would be brighter
if she were lighter.
My own weight had crept up over the years
and was then 98 kg. I thought that
shaving 10 kg off that would be nice.
And doing it together would be companionable.
I am nearly 75 and have not done any
fitness work of any kind, at all, for more than 30 years. I have been nursing an arthritic knee that
persuaded me to give tennis up in my 40s.
My then specialist told me that I would look quite distinguished with a
walking stick. I didn’t like the sound
of that so I have protected my knee with a fairly sedentary life, just the
occasional walks. My knee is no worse
than it was 30 years ago.
So, back to the weight thing. We discovered
Dr Michael Mosley (The Fast 800and
‘intermittent fasting’) and autophagy
and we tried it out together. We gave up lunch so that means we go 10 hours in
the day without food and 14 hours overnight. I gave up the glass of wine at night and we
stopped having slices with our coffees out. We still had the coffees, just not
the stuff that went with them. We also
consciously cut down on the size of our evening meals – no potatoes or rice and
much less pasta – replaced by vegetables like broccoli, onions and beans; also,
far fewer take-aways. But no
‘Mediterranean diet’ or expensive fancy stuff.
We already owned a good set of digital scales
and we started weighing ourselves each morning at the same time and sharing the
changes. My wife kept the details in a
notebook while I kept my record on a spreadsheet. Once a week, we reported the latest week and
changes to-date to our family.
So, how has it all gone? Quite well actually. In the last six months, I have shed more than
17 kilograms (more than one-fifth) and am now almost back to my university
days’ weight of 50 years ago. I
definitely look trimmer and have had to get new clothes and put an extra three holes
in my belts. And we don’t feel hungry,
not even as we approach meal times.
It actually hasn’t been that hard. My wife describes it as like having a new
hobby, one that is quite rewarding; a change of life style. And I think of the 35 packets of butter that
I am no longer carrying round because that’s what 17.5 kg actually looks like
when it’s not layered on me.
It is working for us and we have learned
some lessons.
The morning weigh-in is an
essential part of our routine. You get instant and granular feedback on what
you put in your mouth the day before.
Doing things together is
important and a team-building experience.
Being really open with whomever
matters is also a necessary part of the process. It also helps to resist temptations at
gatherings with family and friends if they know what’s happening.
Keeping a record is part of that and, assuming success, reinforces the whole process. Here is my chart.
Some observations from the
chart’s numbers: It has been a consistent but jagged journey downwards. Of the 198 data points, 61 were
weight-increases from the previous day.
I shed 3 kgs in the first 13 days but it took, on average, 11 days for
each kilogram. More recently, it has
been slower – about 18 days but I am now just about where I want to be.
Lapses are punished instantly
(next morning) and the weigh-in gets you back on track. A recent business trip away added 1.2 kg in
just 24 hours. But it all comes off
again in the next couple of days.
We don’t count calories – too
complicated; and we don’t do conscious fitness stuff – no gym work or jogging;
no weights. Exercise isn’t part of our
weight-loss regime though, at our age, we should probably be doing that for
other reasons.
We save quite a lot of money –
no lunch means no bread and all the things that we used to put on that; no
regular alcohol cuts the liquor bill dramatically; no slices cuts the cost of regular
coffees-out in half and our take-aways bill for evening meals is considerably
reduced.
Despite all of the above, we aren’t
obsessive about the project. We have the
occasional treat but we understand what that means for the next day’s weigh-in. And it really does show up, quite reliably. Weight-wise, we become what we put in our
mouths.
It’s a fun project and so rewarding.
Our routine is working for us and has definitely been a life-changer.
I recently completed a book defending free speech. Emerald Press scheduled it for publication but then decided not to proceed.
What was the book about:
Synopsis: The good university is one that teaches students the intellectual skills they need to be intelligently critical—of their own beliefs and of the narratives presented by politicians and the media. Freedom to debate is essential to the development of critical thought, but on university campuses today free speech is restricted for fear of causing offence. In Defense of Free Speech surveys the underlying factors that circumscribe the ideas tolerated in our institutions of learning. James Flynn critically examines the way universities censor their teaching, how student activism tends to censor the opposing side and how academics censor themselves, and suggests that few, if any, universities can truly be seen as ‘good.’ In an age marred by fake news and social and political polarization, In Defense of Free Speech makes an impassioned argument for a return to critical thought.
Sounded excellent.
So why was it canceled:
Emerald believes that its publication, in particular in the United Kingdom, would raise serious concerns. By the nature of its subject matter, the work addresses sensitive topics of race, religion, and gender. …
Firstly, the work could be seen to incite racial hatred and stir up religious hatred under United Kingdom law. Clearly you have no intention of promoting racism but intent can be irrelevant. For example, one test is merely whether it is “likely” that racial hatred could be stirred up as a result of the work.
So a book defending free speech is dropped by the publisher as they may be prosecuted for publishing it, ironically showing how much we need the book.
Discussing why free speech should extend to questions of race and gender necessarily involves presenting views (such as those of Jensen, Murray, and Lynn), if only for purposes of rebuttal, which upset those who believe that racial and sexual equality is self-evident. If upsetting students or staff or the public is a reason for banning speech, all such discussion is at an end. I end the book by quoting from George Orwell’s original preface to Animal Farm, which was itself rejected by Faber and Faber for being too critical of Stalin: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
I’m sorry adults have frightened you about climate change and how it might affect your future. You might be less afraid if you knew some facts that adults intentionally do not explain to you. I’ll tell you here.
Nuclear energy used to be dangerous, back in the olden days. Today’s nuclear power plants (the ones built in the past 20 years all over the world) have killed zero people, and are considered the safest form of energy in the world. More people have died installing solar panels and falling off roofs than have died from nuclear power problems anywhere in the world for the past few decades. And nuclear energy is the obvious way to address climate change, say most of the smartest adults in the world, because it can provide abundant, cheap, clean energy with zero carbon emissions.
Not quite zero as constructing the plants causes emissions. But it is 12 units per kWh compared to 820 for coal, 490 for gas and 41 for solar.
The United Nations estimates that the economic impact of climate change will reduce the economy by 10% in eighty years. What they don’t tell you is that the economy will be about five times bigger and better by then, so you won’t even notice the 10% that didn’t happen. And that worst case is only if we do nothing to address climate change, which is not the case.
A number of companies have recently built machines that can suck CO2 right out of the air. At the moment, using those machines would be too expensive. But as they come down in cost and improve in efficiency, we have a solution already in hand should it ever be needed. It would be expensive, but there is no real risk of CO2 ruining the world now that we know how to remove any excess from the atmosphere.
So long as there is a price on emissions, the market will lead to such machines becoming affordable.
Throughout all modern history, when we humans see a problem coming from far away, we have a 100% success rate in solving it. Climate change is no different. All the right people are working hard at a wide variety of solutions and already know how to get there, meaning more nuclear power plus CO2 scrubbers, plus lots of green power from solar, wind, and more.
Climate change is a serious and difficult challenge. But it can be done, and not through policies that destroy the economy and kill millions.
Adults sometimes like to use children to carry their messages because it makes it hard for the other side to criticize them without seeming like monsters. If adults have encouraged you to panic about climate change without telling you what I am telling you here, they do not have your best interests at heart. They are using you.
Trump has said that if there are any attacks in response to his killing of the Iranian General, he will attack 52 Iranian sites, including site of cultural value to Iran.
From any other President, you would assume it is empty rhetoric. It is against international law to target cultural and religious sites. Even Hitler’s Generals refused to destroy such sites in France, despite Hitler telling them to do so.
So what if Trump went all the way and announced he will destroy the Imam Reza Mosque (the most holy site in Iran). Would that dissuade Iran from counter attacks?
Or would it inflame the entire Shia Islam world, and lead to a huge increase in attacks around the world?
Would any Western allies stand by Trump if he made such a threat?
Would Trump face international criminal action under UNSC 2347 which states unlawful attacks against sites dedicated to religion may constitute a war crime and the perpetrators of such attacks must be brought to justice?
In this paper, I employ a differences-in-differences design to analyze turnout in elections in over 200 cities, ranging from the early 1990s to 2018. The results indicate a significant decrease in voter turnout of approximately 3–5 percentage points in RCV cities after the implementation of RCV.
So ranked choice voting led to a significant decline in voter turnout.
I suspect the same in NZ for local body elections. Trying to rank 25 people for the DHB is insane.
Chief Washington Correspondent CBS News Host Major Garrett said during the most recent broadcast of CBS News’ “Face The Nation” that President Donald Trump’s efforts, and subsequent successes, to improve the lives of minority communities in the United States was the most underreported news story of 2019. …
“And yet it can be fairly said that this administration, because of President Trump’s quiet prodding, has done quite a bit for funding of historically black colleges and universities,” Garrett said. “The First Step Act, which was a massive first step toward criminal justice reform. Just a couple of weeks ago, in this newly signed defense bill, there is a law that says if you are seeking work for the federal government or any contractor, you don’t have to be asked and you cannot be asked about your criminal history until right toward the end. That’s a significant change long sought by criminal justice advocates, plus opportunity zones in the tax bill directed at communities of color.”
Garrett noted that Trump’s achievements for minority communities have been so historic that it is a record that “almost any president after three years would want to claim, particularly President Obama.”
An interesting observation. Also worth noting the African-American unemployment rate of 5.4% is the lowest in history since they started recording it in 1972.
So while I have studiously avoided the debate thus far over the #TurnArdern campaign – whereby diehard Nats flipped magazines, or at least claimed to, in newsagents over the Christmas holidays – I was no more than faintly bemused by the whole exercise. In any event, it’s about as gentle as civic protests get.
The online reaction to the effort, however, was something else altogether: vitriolic, disproportionate and counterproductive. Particularly loathsome were attempts to demonise the instigator of the campaign, by revealing his hitherto concealed identity, exposing his address and phone number, belittling his occupation and trawling his social media history to attack him as, among other things, “racist”, “sexist”, “misogynistic” and “transphobic”.
Yep he was doxed.
No doubt Ardern’s inner circle would have preferred it if #TurnArdern had simply run out of puff over the course of a couple of news cycles. But strategically wise silence is hard to pull off in the age of social media, with its perverse and damaging incentives. Instead, the PM’s self-appointed cheerleaders took rapaciously to Twitter, drumming up likes and retweets by dialling the spiteful rhetoric to eleventy-stupid. …
Given the season, I briefly wondered whether these Twitter “activists” carry over their favoured modus operandi of “dismiss, demean and disparage” to face-to-face interactions. But of course they don’t – unless they want to be shunned from any future Christmas get-togethers. Conversations have few places to go when you scream “transphobic” at your 80-year-old in-laws.
Some of them might!
But, on the Left, casting our adversaries as stupid bigots strikes me as obviously misguided. Likewise, our tendency to lord it over others with a hyper-abundance of certainty in our superior virtue is obnoxious; our refusal to contemplate the possibility of good faith among those with whom we disagree, alienating. Liberal condescension, paired with an unforgiving approach to ideological purity, risks sending perfectly well-meaning people into the arms of our adversaries or to retreat from politics altogether.
The recently shellacked Jeremy Corbyn offered himself as a case-study in Left-wing hubris when he recently claimed Boris Johnson may have won the British election, but Labour “won the argument”. In one soundbite, he managed to convey staggering arrogance, self-delusion, insufferable smugness and, ultimately, defeatism. It’s a recipe for electoral irrelevance that too many seem eager to replicate.
Corbyn did a year end message to his supporters listing everything they had achieved and he didn’t even mention the biggest election loss since 1935.
I have to say I’ve been stunned with how badly Scott Morrison has handled the Australian bushfires. It has been such a poor show of leadership, he may not recover from it.
First let’s deal with two facts which are both true but also irrelevent
Emergency Disaster responses are the responsibility of the state government, not the federal government
There is nothing Australia by itself could have done in terms of greenhouse gas emissions that would have made the fires less likely
But what citizens want is to think their head of government understands the huge pain they are going through, is there with them, and fighting for them. Morrison’s decision to continue for a while with his Hawaii holiday was badly judged, let alone his statements there is nothing he could do.
What he should have done is some or all of the following:
Fly home the moment it was obvious these fires were beyond the normal for summer
Announce the Federal Government stands ready to support the states in everything they are doing
Announce say $50 million initially in extra funding for emergency relief. Doesn’t even matter what for – it’s showing you’re not being stingy
Set up an emergency co-ordination group of the top federal and state officials and have twice daily conference calls to show you’re focused on the fires, not the cricket
Get to the front line asap. Don’t shake hands unless people offer. Just spend a couple of hours making coffee and tea and snacks for those on the front line
Address the nation and reiterate that Australians are good cobbers who support each other. Announce you will match donations to the Red Cross $1 for $1 and you challenge Australia to raise $200 million for the victims
I suspect the next polls will be brutal for the Government, and for Morrison.
Some hospitals have brought in “meat-free Mondays” as official guidelines recommend the health sector reduce consumption of meat and dairy. However, not everyone is supportive of the shift. Nicholas Jones reports on a hospital foodfight.
Patients’ health will suffer if hospitals cut down on meat and dairy in meals, the country’s former chief education health and nutrition adviser warns.
Can you believe it. You’re in hospital for a major operation, or fighting cancer or something. And you get a vegan meal because of climate activists.
Associate Health Minister and Green Party MP Julie Anne Genter championed the guidelines
Vote Greens, to make hospital food vegan!
“I’m aware Nelson Marlborough DHB has trialled a meat-free Monday and fish Friday in their hospital cafe to a welcome reception, and Northland DHB is also trialling a small meat-free Monday pilot. It is a good thing to increase fruit and vegetables being eaten, and support healthy food choices.”
Next step, ban restaurants from offering meat meals on Mondays!
After the guidelines were released Dietitians NZ, the professional body for dietetics, labelled the meat and dairy recommendation disappointing and not appropriate for those in hospital, who are often malnourished.
