Praise Chekururama retweeted
Section 198 of the Zimbabwean Constitution requires Parliament to enact legislation providing for:
-regular asset disclosures by public officers;
-codes of conduct for public officers;
-standards of good corporate -governance for State-controlled entities; and
-disciplinary measures for breaches of those standards.
Since 2013 Parliament enacted the Public Entities Corporate Governance Act, which expressly states in its preamble that it is intended to give effect to section 198, particularly regarding corporate governance standards and discipline for State-controlled entities.
However, one of the most important requirements of section 198—namely a statutory system requiring public officers to make regular disclosures of their assets—has not been fully implemented through a comprehensive Act of Parliament applicable across the public sector. Section 198 uses mandatory language (“An Act of Parliament must provide measures…”), suggesting that Parliament’s constitutional obligation extends beyond corporate governance of public entities.
Accordingly, Parliament has only partially complied with section 198 through legislation such as the Public Entities Corporate Governance Act and various codes of conduct applicable to particular offices and institutions; but
Parliament has not fully discharged the constitutional mandate of section 198 because there is still no comprehensive statutory framework for asset declarations and enforcement covering public officers generally.
In the context of Members of Parliament recently receiving significant gifts, such a luxury cars, this point is significant because Parliament currently relies heavily on its own Code of Conduct and Register of Members’ Interests rather than a comprehensive section 198 statute requiring public office holders to declare assets, gifts and interests across government.
Why hasn’t Parliament enacted this legislation and why is it institutionally in such flagrant breach of the Constitution?
1
2
3
358
Tara retweeted
Government of Canada officials to hold a media technical briefing regarding the new bill entitled An Act to enact the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act
ow.ly/CEwK106zFVQ
31
14
23
6,250
I always said this was perhaps the biggest injustice to come out of Southport.
Things are so bad in the UK we no longer have a say on how our taxes are spent.
At no point did he tell anyone to enact violence, but the judge asserted he had and ascribed intention.
Pure evil.
1
The state is trying to replace the PARENTS…. This is attempt called STATE PATERNALISM.. when a government creates policies that dictate, restrict, or mandate the behavior of children against or independent of their parents' wishes. …
They couldnt violate your rights through LAW or BREACHING constitution… so they using MENTAL HEALTH avenue and SUEING internet providers like GOOGLE to make it look like GOOGLE has no choice but to enact this ORWELLIAN ATTEMPTS …
It’s a choreographed dictatorship
Jun 12
Real reason Governments want to BAN 16 year olds from Internet 🚨
🚨🚨🚨
1) economic intent is to kill the "Influencer" industry as a career option for young people. The current economy allows teenagers to monetize their own attention and data directly, bypassing traditional corporate structures and tax brackets. By banning access to these platforms, the state forces this entire demographic back into the traditional workforce. If a 15-year-old cannot build an audience online, they are forced to seek employment in low-wage service jobs like fast food or retail. The state is protecting the traditional labor market from a generation that realized they could make more money online than working for a corporation. This addresses the labor shortage by cutting off the alternative.
2) THE GENTRIFICATION OF THE DIGITAL MARKETPLACE⚠️⚠️⚠️
The state is gentrifying the internet. Social media companies earn revenue by selling user attention to advertisers. Users under 16 have high engagement but low purchasing power. They consume data and attention but do not generate significant sales for advertisers. By removing this "low-value" demographic, the platforms become more efficient "Clean Rooms" for high-value commerce. The platform becomes a space populated exclusively by adults with credit cards. This increases the "return on investment" for advertisers and the profitability of the platform, while eliminating the "noise" of a non-paying user base that drives up server costs without generating revenue.
3) THE DESTRUCTION OF 🚨🚨COUNTER-CULTURE IDENTITY
Identity formation occurs between ages 12 and 16. The internet allows this formation to happen in decentralized, horizontal networks where youth create their own culture, slang, and values independent of the state. The ban forces this developmental phase back into the physical world, which is segregated and controlled. The intent is to prevent the formation of a cohesive, digital-native youth culture that exists outside the control of traditional institutions. By isolating minors from their digital peers, the state forces them to assimilate into the local, pre-existing culture of their physical location, which is easier to manage and control than a unified, global online movement.
4) ⚠️The internet allows direct access to information, bypassing the gatekeepers of academia, media, and government. This creates a "knowledge gap" where youth can know more than their teachers or parents. The ban is a reassertion of the chain of custody over information. By preventing access to the unfiltered internet during the most critical learning years, the state ensures that the upcoming generation learns only what is presented to them in the classroom by the state. It prevents the self-education of the population and reinforces the authority of the established expert class.
5)⚠️The legislation is designed to establish a legal precedent that digital platforms are "addictive and harmful products," similar to tobacco or asbestos. By banning children, the state argues that the product itself is dangerous to the human brain. Once the internet is legally defined as a health hazard, the government gains the "compelling interest" to regulate it under emergency powers rather than civil rights protections. This removes the internet from the jurisdiction of free speech laws and places it under the jurisdiction of public health laws, where the state has unlimited authority to restrict activity for the "safety of the public."
92
Calling Reform the "uni-party" is such a weak argument. It won't last. It's not a good strategy for your party. It falls apart as soon as anyone actually thinks about it properly.
You can argue they are a party that you disagree with and don't like their policies.
But it will just end up making your party look totally unreasonable and uncompromising as time goes on. Reform will be attacked by the actual uni-party relentlessly. And lots of events from now until the next election will make this argument from Restore look silly.
You guys need to get off the vicious Reform attacking and just present a positive vision and how you will enact it. It's getting tiring already all this vengeance talk.
4
Una don Dey enact wetin una Dey watch for porn here all in the name of stories to make money. Tufiakwa
1
38
Whether hard left Labour or centre left Reform, it doesn't change a thing.
Reform had their chance and they have delivered nothing. Their MPs don't know their own policies. Nigel attacks Lowe for his and then pretends to want to enact them himself.
@RestoreBritain
2
Oh dear. So you believe a party that wants to be in government should not share the policies it would like to enact? On what do you think people should base their votes?
2
9
Respectfully, I think you are dressing up basic female evolutionary behavior with layers of unnecessary psychoanalysis.
The reality is biological, empirical, and vastly simpler: women support gender ideology because they are women. They're simply executing female-typical evolutionary programming.
Feminism Is Structural Poison
Feminism structurally fails to diagnose this because it views all interactions between the sexes through a manufactured lens of oppression and power dynamics. Rather than acknowledging innate biological dimorphism in cognition and threat-response, any disparities between us is evidence of coordinated male oppression. No, the patriarchy is just biology. And it's for your benefit, obviously.
Feminism tells you that men are your evil oppressors and "patriarchal power structures" are designed to hold you down. What does that even mean? The patriarchy is the forcefield affording every feminist the safety to sit around talking shit. Who should we put in charge instead? The terminally neurotic broads with the explicit goal to smash the entire system keeping civilization functional?
Feminism is brain rot for women. The only way for it to wrap its slimy tendrils around them is to break their spirits by convincing them what they contribute to us as a species, civilization, and society are lame and unimpressive. Women are the cradle and backbone of our entire species.
It convinced women that growing an entire human in their bodies was somehow a reduction of their true capabilities, especially since it's, "raising a man's children." 🙄 Many forewent the pinnacle of human achievement to go file shit in some office for a man anyway. Now they've been convinced their own babies are actually parasites and murdering them is "healthcare."
The point I'm making is that we don't need complex storylines to imagine why women would do self-destructive shit. Women are highly manipulable and that's one of the positives of keeping men around. We are not as easily swayed and we love and care about you. It's not a sign of our superiority, but an asset to help protect you. Feminism says we are your oppressors and convinces you to stand alone. But women can't even open jars. It'd be better if you stand beside us and tell us what to fix.
Feminism Suggests You're Inferior
You claim women are "supposed to be inferior" because of their sex. You aren't inferior because you are women. You aren't inferior at all. You are world-builders.
Men and women are simply different, biologically optimized for distinct roles. Feminism told women that their natural roles in society (motherhood, nurturing) were lesser than what men do, forcing women into direct competition with men.
But men built the societies we inhabit, meaning the public and infrastructural roles are tailored for male biology and male cognition. You seem to equate men's roles with some higher tier of exclusivity where a lack of female representation signals oppression. This is a natural byproduct of feminism convincing women that anything less than "equal" to men is evidence of their subjugation. But we aren't equal to begin with, because we're different, so the premise is fundamentally flawed from the get-go.
Men's capabilities exist not to be "better than women," but to be better FOR women. It should indicate something profound that men evolved the capacity to do so many external things simply because the one thing only women can do—build entire worlds in their bodies—is so immensely valuable.
Men possess a biological out-group preference to protect females. It is ingrained in our cellular reality: protect her, because she does what you cannot do and never can. She is worth more than you. She is not inferior.
Women Support Gender Ideology Because They're Women
You theorize that women support this ideology because it allows them to feel superior to trans-identifying men, and that their anger when called out comes from a refusal to admit their shenanigans.
Perhaps, but unlikely, in my opinion. These women aren't mad they can no longer get their jollies mocking men. If they saw these men as truly pathetic, it would trigger their maternal empathy, not a power trip.
You must remember that most women are not professional TERFs and have no access to unfiltered dialogue regarding the reality of these men. Many of you started off accepting them with a willingness to make exceptions.
I showed a MaryCate video to a female friend I'd convinced to hit a Let Women Speak type event up here. She thought the video insulting these troons was too much and unnecessarily mean. I responded that her response was a "very womanly" one.
Women are biologically optimized toward an empathizing framework. When faced with a trans-identifying male, many women likely assume they are looking at a confused gay man and offer support out of misplaced maternal instinct.
In my experience, even if you try to convince them they're perverts, they'll just resent you for being mean to someone "vulnerable." When I insist that any man invading their space is signaling he's a predator, they confuse it for, "all of your 'trans' friends are predators and they are awful and should be killed!" Women also still seem to believe there's some sort of brain-body mismatch, i.e., this thing is broken and needs my empathy. There's no getting through.
Women I've known have fallen for the manipulation that "transwomen" are far too vulnerable to serve their time in the men's prison. They sent me articles that consisted only of autogynephilic males claiming the vulnerability. That was enough to convince them trans-identified males deserved access to what is meant to keep them safe (from the predators they'd just waved in).
The concept of these men being AGP who are fetishizing women's vulnerability to sexual predation cannot be expressed to them. It just becomes me, an evil cis white man, expressing my cruel indifference by not caring if "women" are vulnerable to rape. Worse, I am calling them the predators.
Other women offer support as a subconscious appeasement tactic. I suspect they are signaling: "I am not one of those evil women who opposes you. Do not hurt me." They get angry when you insult the trans-identifying males because women possess an evolutionary aversion to causing social friction or hurting things. Women notoriously do worse than men on the trolley problem.
This isn't a problem with women. It's not a defect. It's just how women are. But they are easily taken advantage of as their empathy is weaponized against them. Women are more willing to self-sacrifice to keep the peace and men are needed to recognize when it happens and put an end to it.
You aren't inferior, but you are women. Your unlimited empathy and willingness to give something up is for your babies. When you don't have any, your maternal instincts are searching for anything to nurture. Allowing you to vote has only put boundary-violating males in your bathrooms and imported third-world rapists into our streets. Now we have liberal women protesting ICE because deporting Guatemalan rapists is mean.
First-Order Thinking and the Reality of Power
You state that women are doing what they can to "hold on to the little power we do have" as men invade female spaces.
The reality is that women hold immense power—the power of the aggregate vote—and they use it to their own detriment. Because female cognition is optimized for the immediate social radius, women overwhelmingly default to first-order thinking.
Careful consideration of second- and third-order effects is rare. This is about the worst cognitive profile one can design for voting.
Women are the demographic screaming at men who defend pre-born life, yet remaining silent about male rapists in their prisons. Why? Because women will only speak out against an issue if they know society already backs them. The powers that be are fine with "women's liberation" in the form of killing their children. It stops short of allowing women the right to incarceration free from the company of male rapists.
Men consistently try to prevent men from accessing female spaces, but female voting blocs and female-driven empathy policies overrule them. You do not seem to want to acknowledge this.
Women struggle to mentally model the long-term, systemic effects of their decisions the way men can. The paradox of modern democracy is that the less voting power women have, the safer life actually is for them. But excluding women from a social activity is a death sentence to them and revoking their right to vote is signaling exactly that.
Allowing women to vote has opened them up to some extremely powerful propaganda, and frankly, I don't think women can withstand it. It'd be one thing if we were talking about them buying more purses or trivial bullshit, but women legitimately vote in ways that dramatically increase their odds of being raped. I'm not okay with that.
Evolutionary Strategy
You note that women "could see the way the wind was blowing... and bent before it."
This is not a unique feature of the modern woman; this is literal female evolutionary strategy. When a battle is tough and the tribe begins to lose, women do not fight harder; they just acquiesce and switch teams to secure their survival. No need to dress it up like it's anything other than smart for them.
Placating the immediate threat and aligning with the dominant social consensus is how female bloodlines survived history. This is why women making any rules regarding security or safety is a terrible idea.
A woman will pass laws to restrict gun rights or punish those who kill home intruders. To women, it probably is safer to let someone take what they want from the home and leave. For men, this is ceding civil society to anti-socials who deserve swift punishment. But women can't enact justice or enforce their own rights, let alone anyone else's. They have no frame of reference on an evolutionary timescale because dealing with babies is what they do, not punish the deserving. So a woman's sense of justice will always be completely out-of-whack.
The Elephant in the Room
Your conclusion states: "If we can strip away the female support for gender ideology, then we’ll much more easily be able to deal with the fetishists and their liberal male supporters."
This seems quite impossible. You are essentially saying, "If only we could rewire hundreds of thousands of years of evolution until women thought like men."
You cannot train the female empathizing brain to prioritize rigid, systemic boundaries over immediate social harmony and threat-appeasement.
The elephant in the room is that women should not be voting to begin with. Men are already equipped with such a framework and we don't need votes to harm you. We are men. If we want your life to be hell, we can just do that. But we don't. We want you safe. But your votes enable left-wing policies that flood us with fighting age men from third-world shitholes like Afghanistan. European nations must now deal with them before societal collapse.
Regardless of women's support for gender nonsense, they will consistently vote for the left in order to keep killing their own babies. You see nothing wrong with this yourself. Women lack consistent principles and can always rationalize their behavior away.
Men cannot protect women from themselves if women hold the political power to dismantle their own protections. And unfortunately, that's exactly what women keep doing, but they're dragging entire countries down with them, too.
It ain't that deep. Women are just different from men. Not inferior, but we certainly fucked up letting y'all vote and serve in legislature.
It's probably why there isn't a single society that ever did this and why all of them put serious restrictions on what y'all were allowed to do.
Whoops.
So I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about why so many women support gender ideology, and I think that for many, it’s because gender ideology allows women to look down on men.
Gender ideology flips the balance between men and women. For once, they’re the ones whose biology makes them inferior, they’re the ones facing societal limitations that prevent them from achieving their dreams. Every woman, no matter who she is, can feel herself to be superior to even the most beautiful and successful of trans-identifying men because they want, with utter and unchangeable futility, to be what she is.
Very few women go through life feeling superior to men. As a sex, we have an induced inferiority complex that’s so old and so big as to be paradoxically invisible at times. (It feeds the pickme phenomenon, too — but that’s not what’s at work here.)
Gender ideology succeeds because it allows women to feel superior for the very reason we are supposed to be inferior - our sex - and for some women, that feels good, although very few of them will admit as much, even to themselves.
Instead they spout what they know deep down is nonsense, and that knowledge is why they get so angry and defensive when you call them on it. They don’t want to admit to enjoying their perceived superiority, because it’s not very attractive or feminine to revel in that kind of thing, or in the power that comes with it.
That power is also why women go out of their way to show support for trans-identifying men — compliment ugly outfits or atrocious makeup jobs. They tell themselves that they’re being kind, but in reality it’s an exercise of power (and is tinged with not a little cruelty, which any woman who was bullied by other girls as a child should recognize).
These women don’t dare to be openly nasty - it would make them look bad, and these -are- men, after all, meaning violence is possible - so instead they compliment, and relish the false sweetness of it, and enjoy knowing both that they could have caused pain, and that the truth they are deliberately concealing would cause pain if it were known.
It’s not a very healthy response, and it certainly isn’t an attractive one, but it’s not surprising, given that women live with the kind of generational trauma that is, like our inferiority complex, so ancient and so immense as to be mostly invisible — and that said trauma has been massively triggered by the events of the last decade and a half.
As men are celebrated and applauded for pretending to be the thing we’ve been labeled inferior for actually being: watching as they invade our spaces, destroy our sports, and even figure out how to get to us in prison, women have done what we can to hold on to the little power we do have.
For some, that has meant going along with the male invaders — not surprisingly, either; it’s a proven evolutionary survival tactic. These women could see the way the wind was blowing, and so they did what some women have always done, and bent before it.
Oh, I doubt they admitted it to themselves, but it came down to the choice between fighting what looked like a losing battle or joining the winning side, and in a position of superiority, no less. By giving in, they could enjoy being the “better woman,” as well as the warm moral glow that comes with believing one’s self to be on the right side of history.
Others have resisted, although relatively few of us immediately recognized the severity of the threat. Gender ideology has been deliberately packaged by experts in mass manipulation to take advantage of women, even without the superiority element factored in. It appeals to emotion: to the feeling of never being comfortable in one’s skin, to the desire to belong, and many women empathize with that automatically as a result of our experiences during adolescence, which is also why 75% of children who transition are female. (1/2)
59
Please support and enact H.R. 24 and S. 2327, which would order a full audit of the Federal Reserve.
The Fed is very secretive and it is imperative that you promote transparency and hold our institutions accountable.
I don't think they are institutionally anti white, they just have small groups of people in them that promulgate really, really dumb ideas and little is done to stop them trying to enact them. Like the sentencing guidelines that were nixed last year.
43
You believe Albo is making all economic and policy decisons on his own? I thought this was a democracy, and others had input. Just like every other government in Australias existance as a sovereign nation, teams work together to enact polciy and budget management.
15
I don't really care what any world leader does. I will never comply with anything that globalists enact
47
What Farage did was take £1m to hand Johnson power to enact what we all knew was a shit EU deal, destroying small businesses and weakening our borders. Now you’re calling anyone who doesn’t vote for him “utterly moronic”
You haven’t really though this through, have you.
10
It's becoming clear that @Plaid_Cymru took a leaf out of Labour's book from 2024.
1/ Ignore or betray manifesto promises.
2/ Enact policies that were never in the manifesto.
This is how Globalist parties get elected in the West.
bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gy…
2
10
15
152
They have the ability to actually get elected & form a Govt (UK will never elect ethno nationalists)
Enact actual policies & change the country
Most of them going further than Restore
Instead of whining like little bitches on social media forever shouting we got them rattled , I don't care & millions must go like a complete cunt
1
1
43