John Key funny

Arise Sir John

Disclaimer:

Whilst I have reblogged this article from another blog, and I do agree that John Key has been a disaster for this country, it does not mean I or 1Law4All agree with every statement made in the article. For example, I don’t believe we have true poverty in New Zealand. If you calculate the number of people living in poverty as the number living on a percentage of the average wage, then we will always have poverty, even if that same percentage are on an income of $100,000.00 a year. It’s a ridiculous way to decide if people are living in poverty. I also know that by always stating the number of kids, rather than the number of people, is designed to tug at the heart strings, (or guilt strings), because most of us know that if kids are living in poverty, it’s their parents fault. Not the Governments or the taxpayers.

Arise Sir John

For creating a New Zealand where there are over 250,000 kids living in poverty …

For refusing to get the bodies out of the Pike River mine and thereby helping individuals avoid justice …

For Dirty Politics …

For the increasing numbers of homeless sleeping rough …

For selling off shares in the electricity companies and in Air New Zealand and enriching the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us …

For presiding over the development of a housing crisis yet refusing to accept that one existed …

For increasing the Crown’s debt from $10 billion to $93 billion and claiming this was evidence of sound financial management …

For widening inequality in NZ …

For the widening sexist pay gap in NZ …

For legislating to give Sky City further gambling rights so that the convention centre can be built on the back of problem gamblers …

For attacking scientists, reporters and media …

For the repeated lie that every budget would result in a further 170,000 jobs being created …

For ruling out an increase in GST but then implementing one …

For stuffing up negotiations with Warner Bros, Rio Tinto, SkyCity …

For systematically under funding health …

For deliberately running down state housing stock …

For increased surveillance and “jihadi “brides” fear mongering …

For running down the education system with stupid ideological policies …

For the rising rates of “third world” diseases of poverty and overcrowding …

For claiming that tax cuts were fiscally neutral when they caused Crown debt to escalate …

For wanting to make New Zealand a nirvana for the 1% …

For harassing a waitress (and making us an international laughing stock) …

For the stupid failed “War on P” …

For wasting $26m on a failed vanity flag referendum …

For suspending local democracy in Canterbury …

For the creation of the working poor …

For under funding mental health and the highest suicide rates ever …

For claiming that he would apply higher Ministerial standards but then allowing Murray McCully to complete #sheepgate …

For destroying New Zealand’s ability to respond to climate change …

For the fiasco of private prisons …

For taxing paperboys and girls …

For forcing the TPP down our throats …

For turning your back on meaningful refugee increases …

For trying to use tax payer money to pay your Bradley Ambrose payout …

For destroying so many of our waterways in the name of intensified dairying …

For sheltering ministers who have been incompetent and worse …

For lying habitually about everything …

And for all that – achieving nothing of vision or significance …

For pandering to Maori demands, fueling resentment and entitlement and increasing racism in New Zealand…

For allowing mega companies to take our fresh water for nothing…

For championing racist policies which have destroyed New Zealand’s democracy…

Arise Sir John.

By: of The Standard

The last few in green I’ve added. I’m sure you can think of many more. Let’s hear them in the comments!

 

Save

Save

Anthony Willy

The State of Democracy in New Zealand

The State of Democracy in New Zealand

 

Posted on
By

Posted on: NZCPR.COM

Until the passing of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2017 the business of territorial local authorities was conducted by the elected representatives of the citizens living in the particular area. That is no longer the case. Henceforth councils will be required to share their statutory powers with self-selected, unelected entities. This marks the end of democratic local government in New Zealand for the obvious reason that the elected members are no longer sovereign but must take account of the wishes of the self-selected group none of whom will be required to submit to the ballot box. Given that the activities of local authorities play an increasingly important role in our lives this has the potential for far reaching consequences. No longer will the contents of the district plans which control all important aspects of; land and water use, and any activities involving discharges to the atmosphere, be arrived at with the consent and input of the occupants of the district but will become subject to the wishes of unelected group.

However, given that there seems to be increasing disinterest in local body elections one may wonder whether this is necessarily such a bad thing. Why not leave it to the professional staff and an unelected pressure group to determine what activities are, and are not allowed to take place within a district. In other words is democracy such a necessary or good thing? To answer this question it is helpful to start with three aphorisms:

  • “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” – Lord Acton 1887.
  • “Democracy is a psychopathic expression of inferiority” – William Joyce, an American better known as Lord Haw Haw who broadcast defeatist propaganda from Berlin during to the war. He was hung as a traitor by the British at war’s end.
  • Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…” – Winston Churchill 1947.

Churchill uttered this in the aftermath of the general election in which Clement Attlee’s Labour government swept to power. It was an astonishing affirmation of the place of democracy as a political institution. Having lately been instrumental in salvaging the free world from German hegemony, Churchill was nevertheless comprehensively rejected by the United Kingdom voters. One would have expected some bitterness, or questioning of a political structure which intended to and did demolish much of the existing social norms into which he was born, and which his party represented. Not so – he continued to believe in the common sense and life experiences of the electorate in deciding who should govern the country. What then are some of the other forms about which Churchill spoke? To mention a few:

[Read more…]

Muriel Newman

Democracy Under Attack

DEMOCRACY UNDER ATTACK

By Dr Muriel Newman

NZCPR Weekly:

Democracy has been described as a ‘fragile flower’. Indeed it is, and it’s something we take for granted because our relatively young society has not yet experienced its collapse. But it’s that complacency along with a naive assumption that serious social disorder could never really happen here, that has created opportunities for those who seek to undermine democracy for their own personal gratification and enrichment.

The sad truth is that we have allowed those who want to subvert democracy to have a free reign.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator retired Judge and former university law lecturer Anthony Willy, outlines what’s been going on:

“Until the passing of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2017 the business of territorial local authorities was conducted by the elected representatives of the citizens living in the particular area. That is no longer the case. Henceforth councils will be required to share their statutory powers with self-selected, unelected entities. This marks the end of democratic local government in New Zealand for the obvious reason that the elected members are no longer sovereign but must take account of the wishes of the self-selected group none of whom will be required to submit to the ballot box.”

Anthony is, of course, referring to the consequences of the back-room political deal making  between the National and Maori parties earlier this year to unilaterally pass their ‘Mana Whakahono a Rohe’ agreements into law in such a way as to deny all public consultation and avoid any scrutiny by the wider public whatsoever.

By National’s own admission, the new powers that they granted are significant.  They will elevate any number of Maori tribal and family groups into positions of partnership with their local authorities for “plan-making, consenting, appointment of committees, monitoring and enforcement, bylaws, regulations and other council statutory responsibilities” – including over fresh water.

Anthony goes on to say, “Given that the activities of local authorities play an increasingly important role in our lives this has the potential for far reaching consequences. No longer will the contents of the district plans which control all important aspects of land and water use, and any activities involving discharges to the atmosphere, be arrived at with the consent and input of the occupants of the district, but they will become subject to the wishes of unelected groups.”

He further explains, “Democracy has fathered a notion of equal importance and that is the ‘Rule of Law’. This is a lawyer’s construct and little discussed or even understood by the general public. It involves the simple imperative that laws enacted by our democratically elected government will be applied equally to all irrespective of creed, colour or social circumstance. The combination of democratic government and the rule of law are the twin pillars on which all of our freedoms rest. Without the support of both pillars the house cannot stand. Absent either of these foundations, the liberties  we hold dear cannot survive and one of the competing forms of government will come back to haunt us.”

In legislating Maori tribal groups into the status of an elite ruling class that is totally unaccountable to the public, the National Party has undermined the Rule of Law in New Zealand and corrupted democracy as we know it.

It’s fair to ask, how on earth it could have got to this stage – has the nation been asleep while iwi leaders have been advancing their sovereignty agenda?

While the iwi agenda has not been secret, it has not been entirely open either. Much of their manoeuvring has been carried out under the guise of helping disadvantaged Maori. As a result, most New Zealanders have been totally unaware that a long-running and well-planned offensive has been underway.

Some, however, have been trying to raise the alarm for years.

For more than two decades, Professor Elizabeth Rata of Auckland University has warned of the threat being posed by the bicultural movement in New Zealand. She has outlined how a powerful cultural elite from within Maoridom – who were committed to subverting democracy – were positioned inside the State system, to destroy it from within.

According to Professor Rata, biculturalism arose in the seventies, driven by left wing activists who were seeking an alternative to traditional class politics.

What they found, of course, was cultural Marxism – a socialist philosophy originated by a former leader of the Italian Communist Party, Antonio Gramsci, who saw ‘culture’ as the way to win the class struggle. While the traditional battle to ‘liberate’ the working class involved taking control of the ‘economic means of production and distribution’, he focused on controlling the ‘cultural means of production’. His work inspired a literal socialist march through culture-forming institutions such as the media, universities, and churches – enlightening those within about the struggle for social justice by ‘oppressed’ groups in society, centred on race, gender, and sexuality.

Professor Rata explained that many ‘biculturalists’ moved into positions of power and influence in the education and health professions, social services, and government circles, as public servants and politicians, bringing with them their political commitment to the identity politics agenda: “Victimhood was subsequently understood as oppression by colonisation, the patriarchy, and ‘Western’ culture generally – an oppression experienced by ethnic groups, indigenous peoples, women, gays, and religious minorities rather than the capitalist exploitation of working class people.”

Over the years, New Zealanders have been deceived by the bicultural activists, who have claimed that the movement was a means to greater social justice for marginalised Maori. Yet, in reality, it has been used as a Trojan Horse to enable a rich and powerful tribal elite to grow stronger at a cost to disadvantaged Maori, who are little better off today than they were back then.

John Moore, writing on the Liberation blog run by Dr Bryce Edwards of Otago University, has called identity politics an “elitist scam” that enables the state largesse flowing to groups claiming to be marginalised, to end up in the hands of the elites who run the groups, instead of those in need: “Modern social-liberalism – in the form of identity politics – has been exposed as an elitist scam. Gender politics and tino rangatiratanga struggles were all presented as a way to alleviate the poverty, oppression and discrimination of those at the bottom of society. Instead these ideologies have acted to elevate… an elite of those from subjugated sectors of society…”

Professor Rata has also pointed out that while the agenda promoted by biculturalists occurs in the name of social justice, the path to social justice cannot be through ethnic division.

This was reinforced by former US President Barack Obama in 2006, when he said, “Ethnic-based tribal politics has to stop. It is rooted in the bankrupt idea that the goal of politics or business is to funnel as much of the pie as possible to one’s family, tribe, or circle with little regard for the public good. It stifles innovation and fractures the fabric of the society. Instead of opening businesses and engaging in commerce, people come to rely on patronage and payback as a means of advancing. Instead of unifying the country to move forward on solving problems, it divides neighbour from neighbour.”

The reality is that tribalism is an archaic social structure that suits the tribal elite, and no one else. Yet this is what National is supporting through massive state subsidies.

Policies enacted under the tribal ‘by Maori for Maori’ bicultural umbrella have led to separate Maori education systems, Maori university quotas, Maori health care, Maori welfare programmes, Maori housing schemes, and Maori justice programmes. There are Maori government departments and tribunals, Maori-only consultation rights, Maori-only co-governance rights, Maori-only tax rates, and Maori-only charitable status – to name but a few of a vast array of separatist privileges that now exist to support tribalism.

The problem is that the pressure for more tribal power and control is never-ending. Now the Maori Party not only wants to restructure the entire Justice System on “the basis of the Treaty of Waitangi and the foundation of partnership”, but it is also pushing “cultural competency” and a “Maori world view” across the whole of the public sector.

The education system is the latest victim, with cultural competency requirements having become compulsory from 1 July. As a result, all primary and secondary school teachers now have to “Demonstrate a commitment to a bicultural Aotearoa New Zealand” and prioritise “Maori learners as tangata whenua”.

As Professor Barend Vlaardingerbroek explained recently in an article for the NZCPR, “Passive acquiescence won’t do any more: teachers must now be personally committed to this political paradigm. This is where the new standards leave the democratic domain and enter the totalitarian realm. Bang go teachers’ rights as citizens to hold their own opinions without interference. New Zealand teachers are being deprived of a fundamental right of all citizens in a democracy – the right to disagree with ideological dicta promulgated by the political elite. This right is not about letting teachers get away with denigrating or abusing Maori kids, which falls foul of the duty of care and professional ethics. This is about hitting teachers who are actual or potential political dissenters with a stark choice: submit or vacate. And that is enforced ideological conformity – the antithesis of democracy and an infringement of teachers’ internationally acknowledged human rights.”

With there now being a critical shortage of teachers in New Zealand, one can’t help but wonder whether compulsory cultural competency requirements, that requires all teachers to not only swear an allegiance to the Maori sovereignty agenda, but to indoctrinate the children as well, is the straw that is breaking the camel’s back.

It’s all emerging as Professor Rata warned. The bicultural movement was captured by radical Maori separatists who will not stop until Maori control all governance processes – they want to return the country to Maori. “The bicultural movement in New Zealand has been a mistake – it is subverting democracy, erecting ethnic boundaries between Maori and non-Maori, and promoting a cultural elite within Maoridom.”

But she has also warned that there are two sides to biculturalism – the small elite group that are promoting it and the much larger group that is allowing it to happen.

And that’s where our fragile flower of democracy stands today.

So, what of the future and the possibility of a new government come 23 September?

The National Party has already said that if it wins sufficient support it would prefer to enter into another coalition agreement with the Maori Party after the election.

This news will have no doubt caused many former National voters to despair.

Anyone in doubt about the merits of National’s liaison with the Maori Party needs only reflect on the mess that National’s concession to the Maori Party over the foreshore and seabed has caused, whereby hundreds of Maori groups, gifted with millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to fund their opportunistic grab for New Zealand’s coastline, have lodged claims covering every square inch of our coast, many times over, forcing citizens to have to fight to protect our public rights.

Labour, it appears, would be no better as their leader Andrew Little has already said he supports Maori sovereignty. So too does the Green Party, which also wants a new constitution based on the Treaty of Waitangi.

That’s also one of the goals of Gareth Morgan’s Opportunities Party – to increase Maori rights and put the Treaty at the heart of all Government affairs.

At this stage the only dissenting voice is that of Winston Peters with his call for a binding referendum of all voters on the future of the Maori seats – which, of course, are the power base of the bicultural movement and their Maori sovereignty agenda.

As the election jostling continues, one can only hope that more political parties will come to recognise the crucial importance of the Rule of Law and Democracy to New Zealanders – and realise that overwhelmingly, Kiwis want to live in a country where all citizens are treated equally.
 

Photo of Alan Duff

Doug Graham: Who has got to him?

Doug Graham: Who has got to him?

By Alan Duff

Published in the Rotorua Review 17 June 2017

There is no sense of remorse, or evidence of a conscience, or awareness of the extent of his public humiliation that will make Tuku Morgan apologise.

So this columnist is not going to waste more breath on him or his foolish political friends, who seem intent on going down with his ship already with just its prow out of the water.

If they sink with him, they’ll know who to blame for their lack of judgement and political cowardice.

Talking of judgement, ex-Justice Minister Doug Graham’s statements that we must all come to terms with there being one law for Maori and another for the rest of New Zealand is about as dunderheaded and “got at” as you can get. Brown men in suits down there in the capital must have got at him. Sly old brown foxes must have turned the hunt on him and made him the pursued.

He’s taken European legal principle and thrown it into the pot cooked up by cunning, self-serving jokers with the gall, the fee-charging effrontery, to call themselves Maori, representing, no-one bothers to check, themselves – a small group of them.

Doug Graham wont go down in history as the man who did so much to settle the long-standing Maori land grievances, not with statements like this. Instead, he’ll be remembered as the white man who sold out his fellow New Zealanders, part-Maori and non-Maori, to a bunch of brown gangsters and their pale brown thugs.

*(He’ll have lots of company in that club – John Key, Nick Smith, Bill English, Chris Finlayson and many others)

Undemocratic

There cannot be one law for Maori and another for the rest. It is undemocratic, divisive in the extreme. And anyway, it’s so stupid when you try to think of its application you would be right to question the intelligence of its advocates like Graham.

What happens to mixed blood marriages and their offspring? What are the children in the eyes of the law – Maori, European, half of each, what? Is my European wife under a separate law from myself?

Are our children, being quarter Maori, about the same percentage as Sir Tipene O’Regan, one or the other? Which part of their anatomy holds the trout-licence exemption? The eyes that spot the fish and think of which fly to tie? Or the hands and arms that cast the rod? Do their European first cousins fish along side them under threat of the law if they don’t have a fishing licence?

Can the law be broken by their mother but not me for the exact same recreational activity and catching fish which are not traditional but introduced? Is Doug Graham the ass the law can sometimes be?

What about our sports teams, say a rugby team? Same citizenry rights, to vote, to go to war, civil freedoms, but under separate law for certain things? Did Doug Graham see none of this when he opened his mouth? Can he really be that blind, that monumentally stupid, not to mention gutless for not standing up to these gangsters, that he fails to see the ramifications for his country? Has he got some sort of an agenda?

Screaming

Most of us are tired of screaming about lazy Maoris wanting money for nothing. Most of us are appalled at seeing Maoris attempt to carve up a state funded Maori television station among themselves while telling us they’re out for our interests.

Education trusts spend the money on paying burgeoning bureaucracy higher and higher salaries and perks, leaving nothing for the education. Tribal trusts blow their iwi’s funds. We’re still arguing four years later over the quarter billion dollar fisheries handout.

But the consultants and lawyers are still being paid. Public funding has become the Maori equivalent to robbery without arms. Hands are all that are needed. Fast ones. Working hard and having a work ethic, is considered dumb.

The best thieves get the most honour. They pin medals on their chests. The rest of Maoridom gets the pie in the sky promises whilst these jokers eat up large here on earth. The message goes out to Maoris that it’s a good thing not to earn money by the sweat of your own brow, just fill out the application form. And kick up brown hell if you get questioned too hard, let along turned down.

Accountants

Every state dollar meant to be thrown at Maori “problems” becomes only a “problem” for the accountants of the brown mafia as to where to channel the dosh. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars meant to help “cure” Maori social woes and all they’ve done is get worse. Any wonder when the money’s not reaching anywhere near the problem.

Maoris now shamelessly kick up when they’re not consulted on every tiny civil matter. They kick up when they lose a legal argument, whine when public funding comes with a demand for accountability. They whine even when it doesn’t because it’s never enough. Neglectful Maori parents – of which the country’s overwhelming majority are Maori – never get it that you have to tell children their existence is wonderful.

They never get it that you have to make sacrifices for your children to advance beyond what you got given. They’ll continue to not get the picture on anything so long as they’ve got politicians like Doug Graham telling them they live under separate laws and rules.

This column is contributed and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Rotorua Review.

*Comment in green added by 1Law4All.

Maori Statutory Board given arse card by High Court

Maori Statutory Board given arse card by High Court

 

Good news, the Maori Statutory Board has been told to sling their hook by the High Court.

A bid to protect Auckland’s Maori cultural sites has been thrown out in the High Court due to a lack of evidence as to their importance.

The Independent Maori Statutory Board appealed a decision by Auckland Council to remove provisions relating to sites of value for mana whenua from the Unitary Plan.

However, in a ruling released to the public on Tuesday, Justice Edwin Wylie rejected the appeal, saying there wasn’t enough evidence of the sites’ significance.

Complete mumbo-jumbo in other words.

The board, comprising seven mana whenua group representatives and two mataawaka representatives, sought to incorporate sites of value to mana whenua in an overlay in the unitary plan.

In September 2012, a working draft of the proposed unitary plan was released to iwi authorities, which proposed two levels of protection for sites and places of Maori cultural heritage.

Included in the draft was a schedule detailing 61 sites and places of significance to Maori, and a cultural heritage layer which would cover about 2231 public and private sites.

That was whittled down from about 9000 different sites through consultation with public and mana whenua groups in September 2013.

The Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) recommended Auckland Council delete a number of provisions affecting Maori from the proposed unitary plan, including the schedule of sites of value to mana whenua which was to be included in the district and regional plan section, until evidence of their significance had been established.

Justice Wylie found that of the 2213 sites proposed, only 140 had specific submissions and evidence provided from mana whenua, and only 16 were supported by detailed evidence at the hearing.

He said, having heard evidence from a large number of parties both for and against the overlay of sites, the panel was entitled to delete the overlay of sites from the proposed plan.

Without evidence of mana whenua values to support all sites, the provisions lacked sufficient evidence overall, Justice Wylie ruled.

Knock me down with a feather, Justice Wylie got one right for once.

Reblogged from: Whale Oil

Save

Photo of Casey Costello

An Outstanding Landmark Speech by Casey Costello – Hobson’s Pledge

An Outstanding Landmark Speech by Casey Costello – Hobson’s Pledge

Please read this amazing speech by Casey Costello of Hobson’s Pledge.

BEWARE OF SEPARATISM – WE ARE NEW ZEALANDERS FIRST

by Casey Costello

“He iwi tahi tatou… At this time in New Zealand I don’t think there is a more powerful statement to be made.

Hobson’s Pledge has been established with total commitment to New Zealand’s history of equality – setting precedent for inclusion and unity.

Standing next to Don Brash does of course raise the question as to who I am, on what authority can I speak on such an important issue, and to be honest it is a question I ask myself.

Don Brash is a person who, on top of his personal and professional achivements, has continued to have the conviction, fortitude and integrity to never walk away from any opportunity to support and encourage our nation’s leaders and decision makers.

On top of this he has been consistent and steadfast in his position regarding equality before the law, the founding principle of Hobson’s Pledge Trust.

This consistency in his position has somehow been used as a reason to minimize and negate our message.

Astounding that someone with such a political background has remained steadfast on any issue let alone an issue as important as this.

For my part I am proud to be a spokesperson and my credentials are simple.

I am a New Zealander.

I am so proud of our nation, our place in the world and our melting pot culture.

We are not without our history both good and bad but it is time to focus on our future, on the path that New Zealand is taking in the years ahead.

There are many challenges that face us in terms of housing, protecting our environment, managing our nation’s resources and supporting those in need.

These are issues that impact all New Zealanders and are not peculiar to any ethnicity.

Hobson’s Pledge seeks to highlight the actions that are being taken by our government that undermine the foundations our country was built on – equality, democracy, and unity.

We have reached a point where we are being asked to identify by ethnicity and not citizenship.

I am a New Zealander, a Maori and a descendant of Anglo/Irish settlers who came here in the 1860s but firstly a New Zealander.

We all have our journey that brought us to this country and our unifying factor is our New Zealander citizenship.

Regardless of when we or our ancestors came here we have always known that our citizenship assures us equal recognition and representation before the law.

When I became involved with Hobson’s Pledge I was aware of an increasing level of concern and frustration that exists broadly among New Zealanders in regard to separatist policies that were creating racial division.

Unfortunately this was a subject difficult to discuss for fear of being labelled racist and anti-Maori.

Even when I speak out on this divisive and separatist platform that our government has created it has been suggested that I am a “token”.

I have had my ancestry and credentials as a Maori challenged.

It has even become an issue as to how much Maori I am, apparently percentages count.

To be clear I am here to speak for Hobson’s Pledge as a New Zealander with respect for the Treaty of Waitangi, for all the people that are part of our nation and to protect our legacy of forward thinking inclusive legislation as first demonstrated in the treaty…

He iwi tahi tatou – we are now one people.

But our Government, our nation’s leaders are NOT allowing us to be one people.

We are being delivered separatism and an erosion of our democracy on the basis that this will redress historical issues and achieve an equality that we are expected to accept has not previously been available to Maori.

This is not true.

I have been privileged in my life to be raised at a time where I did not know that Maori ancestry deprived us of an opportunity to succeed, where we were not equal.

When I stood beside my grandfather while he worked his land in Whakapara, no one told me he was poor, that we were disadvantaged.

Despite the fact that, if he was assessed by today’s standards, he would be deemed to be “in need” my grandfather, Honi Pani Tamati Waka Nene Davis, never considered that he was not equal and that he had been prevented from achieving economic prosperity.

What he did know was that he was responsible for his family and he got up every morning and proudly took care of those that depended on him.

Together with my gracious, proud and loving grandmother all their mokopuna were taught their culture and instilled with pride.

We were taught respect, we knew how to show empathy, and we were never in any doubt about how much we had to be grateful for.

When my mother married my father they left Northland to start their family and all six of us were raised in Auckland.

We remained connected with our heritage both Ngapuhi and Anglo/Irish.

Just like so many New Zealanders we knew where we had come from and that there was no limit on what we could become.

And there were no limits… but I suppose the difference was that there was definitely no handouts.

I vividly recall my brother full of teenage arrogance deciding that he would leave school and claim an unemployment benefit.

On finding this out my mother made him pay the money back – no child of hers was going to live on handouts when we were capable of working and succeeding.

I came from a proud heritage and was lucky enough to live in a country where I would not be judged on anything other than my ability and my work ethic.

From leaving school to work in an icecream parlour, through a range of industries, to the Police (leaving as a detective sergeant), vice president of the New Zealand Police Association, to my current position as general manager of a building services company, I have been exposed to a full range of industries and responsibilities and at no time have I ever encountered barriers or restrictions either for my race or my gender.

To go even further I have observed that when in a position of being equally qualified to my peers my ethnicity and gender has been an advantage and I defy anyone to dispute that point.

Never in my lifetime have I seen an instance where being a Maori has been a disadvantage. It has also never been an excuse for lack of achievement.

We are so frequently told that there is a need to make special allowance and extra compensation to those with Maori ancestry because without this we will not see Maori succeed.

This rationale is flawed and any special allowance that is based upon when your ancestors arrived in New Zealand is, at its core, racist and separatist.

For those who try to tell me that this special allowance is needed for Maori to achieve equality then I stand here today to tell you that you insult me, you patronize my heritage and MOST importantly you deprive the generations ahead of us of an inherent belief that anything is possible.

So what has changed from the New Zealand I was raised in to now?
Somewhere along the way Te Tiriti o Waitangi – the Treaty of Waitangi, established to provide equal recognition and opportunity to all New Zealanders – has become the mechanism by which division and disempowerment are the stock in trade.

A runaway train that is gathering momentum channeling increasing amounts of money to frequently self-appointed representatives with virtually no benefit being distributed to those with genuine need.

I defer to the very wise words of Sir Apirana Ngata from a speech he delivered in 1940 –

‘What remains of the treaty of Waitangi? What is there in the treaty that the Maori can today celebrate whole heartedly with you?

‘Let me say one thing. Clause 1 of the Treaty handed over the mana and the sovereignty of New Zealand to Queen Victoria and her descendants forever.

‘That is the outstanding fact today.

‘That but for the shield of the sovereignty handed over to her Majesty and her descendants I doubt whether there would be a free Maori race in New Zealand today.

‘Let me acknowledge further that in the whole of the world I doubt whether any native race has been so well treated by a European people as the Maori of New Zealand.’

I wonder how Sir Apirana would reflect on the situation now.

New Zealand is being divided, the country that was founded on unity and inclusion, the country that was the first to give women the vote, is being divided by a vocal minority that has made it impossible to even have the conversation about the issues of equality and unity without being labelled racist.

Through legislation, policy and process New Zealand is being separated.

I have been told so many times that the reason for the challenges that seem to be confronting Maori is due to grievances that occurred over the last 175 years.

We are asked to believe that Maori are so poorly represented in the all the worst statistics due to racial disadvantage and prejudice.

It is never about poor personal choices and lack of responsibility or accountability.

The strongest message we are bombarded with is that there needs to be a putting “right”, to make amends but this isn’t being done through creating opportunity but through separatist legislation, erosion of our democracy and lastly handing over money without any condition or control on how it should be used.

We fully acknowledge that where it can be established land has been confiscated then compensation should be paid by way of a full and final settlement.

And where are these settlement funds going? Is it being used to support the most vulnerable and in need, has it enhanced prospects for Maori.

Since 1990 over $2 billion has been allocated for settlement and yet this does not seem to be achieving any tangible benefit for Maori.

In fact it seems to be the opposite impact we are being asked to believe things are worse, worse than it was for my grandparents and worse than it was for me.

So for the sake of this elusive equality for those with Maori ancestry we are now eroding our democracy… it seems the more that is given the less is achieved.

It makes me glad that my grandparents are not around to hear Maori leaders promote that it is okay to expect less of Maori; that it is okay to offer no accountability, no responsibility; that it is okay to excuse failure and lack of pride and motivation because of a history that has long since been put right.

The strongest message from so many is that Maori have been failed, deprived, held back. This is not true.

All that is being created by a vocal minority is a demotivating sense of entitlement and mounting resentment.

I am not alone on this, there are many respected and accomplished leaders with a proud Maori ancestry that support this position.

No matter who you are, what your ancestry is, or what country you call home if your Government, if your legislation, if your society continues to send a clear message that you cannot achieve because of some vague, undefined, and frequently imaginary barriers, then you will never achieve. Why would you even try?

I do not stand here claiming there isn’t need, there isn’t poverty, there isn’t social issues but this is not exclusive to any ethnicity.

More and more is being done to ensure that there is not even a suggestion of bias or inequality but we still see Maori being more poorly represented in the worst statistics now than they were 30 years ago.

And yet we still cannot stop and discuss the situation without cries of racism.

I am fully aware of the challenges and often horrific conditions that exist for those in New Zealand who are vulnerable and in need.

I have 14 years of Police service, mostly in South Auckland that gives me the knowledge and first-hand experience to be able to comment on the challenges that face our most vulnerable.

Hobson’s Pledge fully acknowledge that need exists and I believe every society must be judged on how they treat their most vulnerable and most in need.

But need is based upon need, not on ethnicity.

Equal distribution of support is essential and cannot be prioritized based upon race or upon when you or your ancestors arrived in New Zealand.

Maori have succeeded and continue to succeed in academia, arts, business, media, politics.

To continue to claim special representation is needed is patronizing, divisive and counterproductive.

Hiding behind their claims of addressing equality our Government is protecting their alliances and balance of power by making concessions that undermine our democracy and create inequality before the law.

Management of our resources, control of fresh water, Hauraki Gulf, Waikato River, even down to consulting on the use of geographically significant place names… the concessions continue

And yet New Zealanders are still reluctant to speak out for fear of being seen as ignorant and racist… best not to mention that despite all the fancy words, the Emperor is actually naked!

Our Prime Minister has the arrogance and demonstrated contempt for those people who have supported his party to suggest that “New Zealand has moved passed this” – deriding Hobson’s Pledge for its position.

How offensive that he can scoff at a stand for equality and unity while actively endorsing legislation that is dividing New Zealand based on race.

Our strength as a nation will continue to grow through recognizing our diversity, individual accountability, personal responsibility and our foundation of unity: he iwi tahi tatou

We cannot allow the voice of a few to force us into separatism.

I ask you for your support. I ask you to help us send a very clear message that New Zealanders are smarter and more informed than our Government gives us credit for.

Register your support. Give us the numbers to verify the importance of this issue. It is through your support, your donations and your involvement that we can create the Political appetite for change.

In the powerful words of another respected and accomplished Maori leader, Sir Peter Buck:

‘Beware of separatism. The Maori can do anything the Pakeha can do, but in order to achieve this we must all be New Zealanders first.'”

Casey delivered this landmark speech in Tauranga on the 22nd of November, 2016.

Linday Perigo

“Magnificent Pandemonium”—Linz vs Muslims and Their Enablers

“Magnificent Pandemonium”
Linz vs Muslims and Their Enablers

This speech has been published with the kind permission of Mr Lindsay Perigo.

This is the speech I delivered almost in its entirety in my capacity as special commentator, along with Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy, at Monday night’s semi-final in the intra-university Next Generation Debates series at Auckland University. I say “almost in its entirety” because a gaggle of Muslims became very vocal near the end of my speech and demanded, successfully, I be stopped at once for having gone over my allocated time. The point at which I was shut down is noted in the text below.

What a member of Young New Zealand First called “magnificent pandemonium” followed, with epithets flying back and forth, Dame Susan waiving her right of rebuttal and storming off from the table we were both sharing.

****************************************************

“That this House would ban religious symbols in public.”

I’m a libertarian. As a rule I don’t believe in banning anything … except banning. I don’t believe in banning religious symbols in public, even though I’m an atheist. [At this point the lights went out, and I declared myself a Believer. Then they came back on.] I often repair to the immortal maxim derived from Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it.”

What a magnificent sentiment!

Article 13 of our Bill of Rights says:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.

Article 14 says:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

Article 15 says:

Every person has the right to manifest that person’s religion or belief, in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.

I agree with all that.

Unfortunately Article 4 makes it clear that this Bill of Rights can be trumped by legislation contrary to it, meaning the whole thing is a sham!

So that’s the first thing I’d do before worrying about the display of religious symbols: remove Article 4 from the Bill of Rights so that it really is a Bill of Rights.

Second, I’d abolish Dame Susan. Nothing personal! I’d just abolish the office of Race Relations Commissar and with it, the entire Human Rights Commission, to which I routinely refer as the Human Wrongs Commissariat. This cossetted coterie of taxpayer-supported fascists of the left just want to impose their precious, prissy, puritanical Political Correctness upon all of us. They’re our Thought Police, prattling on about diversity when they’re attempting to outlaw the most important diversity of all, ideological diversity and make their Political Correctness compulsory. Everything in their universe would be either illegal or compulsory. In my universe they’d have to find real jobs and the legislation that set them up would be repealed.

You see, that legislation already contains provisions that violate our Bill of Rights.

Article 131 of our Human Rights Act says you can go to jail for making insulting comments about someone’s race or country of origin!

So there was this Irishman, Englishman and Scotsman … oh wait, we can’t go there.

So there was this Iraqi, Iranian and Pakistani … of my, we most certainly can’t go there!

So much for: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression 

I hate to break it to you, but there is a right to insult. The way to deal with a racist is to shame with reason, not to jail the speaker. Freedom of expression includes the right to say offensive things. It does not include a right never to be offended.

There is certainly a right to say things that will be construed as insults by those intent on being insulted even though those things spoken were not intended to be insulting.

And that gets us close to the nub of the issue.

This is the Age of Umbrage, the Age of Offence-Taking. All chance of debate on any matter of substance is instantly closed down nowadays as soon as some some two-bit totalitarian, some shrieking Social Justice Warrior, some pompous PC Thought Policewoman whines, “I find your statements offensive.” For these latter-day Inquisitionists, the only thing that gets them out of bed each day is to find something to be offended by and be a victim of. Racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, White Privilege , income inequality … you name it. To them, the best response I know of was uttered by comedian Stephen Fry, who said, and I shall quote him exactly: Quote—“It’s now very common to hear people say, ‘I’m rather offended by that.’ As if that gives them certain rights. It’s actually nothing more than a whine. ‘I find that offensive.’ It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so fucking what!” Unquote.

The stifling pervasiveness of this infantilism, the mindless absurdity of campus “safe zones” where one’s “sensitivities” won’t be “triggered” by “micro-aggressions,” is such that free speech is all but dead. It has been killed above all by those institutions that once were its proud bastions, the media and the universities. Here I want to salute as noble exceptions the students at Otago University who just voted down a ban on “offensive” costumes at their annual party by their purported representatives, the Otago University Students Association. The OUSA had issued a list of forbidden apparel, including anything depicting Nazis, Arabs, Bill Cosby or Caitlyn Jenner. The students rebelled. A referendum was held and 67% of participants voted against the prohibitions. Congratulations, Otago students. But look out. Big Sister Susan is watching you!

We all know what the real moot is here tonight. Not the generic banning of religious symbolism in public, but the specific banning of Muslim religious symbolism. There’s no issue with Christians or Buddhists or Sikhs or Hindus or Jews wearing their drag and bling in public. There is an issue, because of everything that’s going on in the world, with Muslims covering up their faces. But had the moot been, “That this House would ban the burka,” this debate would not have been allowed to proceed. Muslims would have taken offence, Dame Susan, even though Islam is not a race and hence not within her purview, would have instigated prosecution proceedings against NZ Initiative, and we’d be having to launch a campaign to “Free Oliver Hartwich!”

But we should be able to debate banning the burka. What’s going on in the world does make it an issue.

Ordinarily, as a libertarian I’d say wear whatever drag and bling you want; just don’t force me to wear it. That’s my default position. In the case of Islam, however, there’s one significant consideration that might cause me to depart from that position. That is, elements of Islam have declared war on us, in accordance with their Holy Book, and are waging that war with a brutality we never expected to see revisited in the twenty-first century. These are sub-human barbarians who want to take us back to the stoning age. They want their evil superstition to be mandatory for everyone in a world-wide caliphate. In free countries they take advantage of freedom of speech to hold up signs saying, “Death to the Infidel!” “Freedom of speech go to hell!” “Man-made law go to hell!” “Massacre those who insult Islam!” “Behead those who insult the prophet.” Like the Human Wrongs Commissariat, they don’t believe in the right to insult, and they behead away with impunity.

In war, all bets are off. You don’t have to extend peacetime freedoms to those you’re at war with. In WW2 England people were not free to wear Nazi regalia in public, or hold Nazi demonstrations, or advocate publicly for Nazism, and neither should they have been. We’re not obliged to extend freedom of expression to any enemy who is seeking by violence to take ours away, and to kill us. We must not assume that because no Muslim in New Zealand has ever committed a terror attack, none ever will. I would hope that “reasonable” non-violent Muslims are cooperating with authorities in monitoring for signs of violent ones.

My contention, though, is that “non-violent Muslim” is a contradiction in terms, given the number of injunctions in the Koran along the lines of “slay the infidel wherever ye may find him” and the odious violence that is Sharia Law. My position is that “non-violent” Muslims are by definition not Muslims at all, even if they consider themselves to be.

[At this point, shouting by Muslims got very loud, and they demanded I be silenced at once since I had gone over time. Unfortunately the organisers capitulated, and asked that I stop immediately, notwithstanding my protestations that I was almost there. So the following lines of my speech were not delivered.]

Now I wouldn’t put any bans or restrictions in place just yet, except one: on further Muslim immigration while Jihad is going on anywhere in the world. I would put Muslims on notice that I reserve the right to put other bans or restrictions in place, and expect them to understand that and cooperate.

So, ban the burka? Not right now – there’d be no particular point as best I can tell – but we’d be within our rights to do so and there could be a point quite soon.

The overarching thought I want to leave you with is that we should be able to at least debate this matter without the spectre of the Human Wrongs Commissariat hanging over us.

PS: If there’s anyone I haven’t offended here tonight, I do apologise.

(abridged)

lindsayperigo.com

Twenty Two Mendacious Modern (part-)Maori Myths

A useful reference when challenged on your stance of 1Law4All:

  1. The Maoris are indigenous to NZ.

Wrong. Unlike the Indians in North America and the Aborigines in Australia, who have been on their land for tens of thousands of years, gaggles of Maoris arrived in New Zealand about 1250 A.D. a mere 400 years before Abel Tasman. At Cape Reinga there is a hillock that, according to Maori lore and the accompanying sign, the spirits of dead Maoris leave from on their journey home to Hawaiki, thus showing that even the modern part-Maoris don’t believe that they are indigenous.

  1. The Maoris enjoyed an idyllic life before the arrival of the white man.

Before the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 New Zealand was divided among numerous warring tribes. Since 1820 about one third of their population (43,500) had been killed as a result of tribal warfare and all lived in constant fear of being attacked by a stronger tribe with better weapons. Cannibalism, ritual human sacrifice, slavery, female infanticide, witch-doctory and a lack of any form of law and order were features of their Stone Age existence.

  1. The Maoris did not cede full sovereignty at Waitangi in 1840.

This lie has recently been put out by the Waitangi Tribunal at the behest of part-Maori radicals. By Article One of the Treaty the chiefs ceded full sovereignty of these violent and anarchic islands to Queen Victoria forever as the speeches of Rewa, Te Kemara, Kawiti and other chiefs of the time show. Twenty years later at the Kohimarama (Auckland) conference, the largest gathering of chiefs in New Zealand history, they declared that full sovereignty had been ceded in 1840. If the chiefs did not cede sovereignty, they would have continued their cannibalism, which meant a lot to some of them.

  1. Those tribes, like Tuhoe and Tainui, whose chiefs did not sign the Treaty, are not bound by it.

The obvious answer to this is that Tuhoe, Tainui, etc. should return to the taxpayer all their substantial Treaty settlements. For how do those tribes take a  settlement from a Treaty that their tribal forebears did not sign? However, as is so often the case, the obvious is not the truth. By living peacefully under the law for several generations – paying taxes, receiving welfare benefits, fighting in the armed services, etc. – these and other tribes have, by their actions, accepted the sovereignty of the Crown. Whether or not their forebears signed the Treaty is irrelevant. End of story.

  1. The Treaty of Waitangi was a “partnership” between the Crown and Maori.

No. Full sovereignty was ceded to Britain in 1840 as Britain, at the time the greatest empire in the history of the world, did not go in for “partnership” agreements with Stone Age chiefs who had been unable to bring peace and order to their own lands. Indeed, one of the instructions of Colonial Secretary, Lord Normanby, to Captain Hobson, was to walk away if full sovereignty could not be ceded as, without it, Britain would have no legal basis for bringing order and peace to the islands. No special concessions or “partnership” were mentioned in the Treaty for the simple reason that there was no partnership.

This was clearly understood by all parties until the Maori radical movement got off the ground in the 1980s. Realising that by the words of the Treaty they could not get superior rights over other New Zealanders, they invented the “partnership” concept for that very purpose. For reasons of cowardice, treason or self-interest, others, politicians, judges, bureaucrats – have bought into this lie. It is also being taught in our schools in an effort to soften up the next generation for a whole new tranche of tribal demands.

  1. There are principles of the Treaty.

No, the Treaty was a very simple document of only three Articles, none of which mentions “principles” or “partnership.” Since the Treaty gave equality for the first time to all the people of New Zealand, the grievance industry of the late twentieth century knew that they could not get special race based privileges from the Treaty itself and so, 150 years after the event, they invented for the first time the fictions of “principles” and “partnership” to give them what the Treaty does not.

  1. There are two conflicting versions of the Treaty one in English and the other in Maori.

There is only one Treaty and it’s in Maori – (Te Tiriti). It was signed by around 500 chiefs. It was translated from the English draft, known as the Littlewood document. Hobson’s secretary, James Freeman, later made some English replica versions of the Treaty, adding his own phrases here and there. Those were neither drafts of the Treaty nor translations of it. But one of these replica versions in English was signed by some chiefs at Waikato Heads because the genuine manuscript copy intended for signing had not arrived in time for the meeting. By the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the government has adopted this illegitimate version, signed by a mere 49 chiefs in the abovementioned circumstances, as the “official” English Treaty, displacing Te Tiriti that was signed by nearly 500 chiefs!!!!

  1. The Treaty of Waitangi is a “living document.”

Wrong. The Treaty was merely the pre-condition for establishing British rule, which Governor Hobson did by proclamation later in 1840. By the end of 1840, the Treaty was regarded as having performed its function, viz. acceptance by the chiefs of British sovereignty in exchange for full British citizenship for all Maoris.

It’s only become a “living document” for those who want to expand its meaning so as to give ever more spurious rights to the tribal elite -­ including people like former Labour Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Cullen, who, since his retirement from Parliament has become the highly paid chief Treaty negotiator for the Tuwharetoa tribe for which, interestingly, if not worse, he used his ministerial position to grant a generous part of the nation’s forests under the Treelords deal a short time earlier.

  1. Colonisation was bad for Maoris.

In one bold stroke the Treaty of Waitangi freed all the chiefs’ slaves (about 10,000 of them). They were then free to take work on things like road building contracts, thus earning money and being able to spend it how they liked.

The Treaty brought an end to tribal warfare and cannibalism, thus giving individual Maoris a right to life that they had not had before. For a society that had not even invented the wheel or writing, colonisation brought all the advanced inventions, comforts and contemporary medicine of the Western world. In 1840 the average life expectancy of a Maori was less than 30 years. In 2012 it was 72.8 years for men and 76.5 years for women.

  1. Maori had to wait 27 years after 1840 before being granted the vote in 1867.

Not so. Maoris had the same representation as all other New Zealanders from the very beginning. The Treaty had given them the full rights of British subjects. In 1853 all men over twenty-one who owned property (with no distinction for race) could vote. At the time about 100 Maoris (mainly leaders) were enrolled to vote and by 1860 some 17% of the electorate were Maoris. The special Maori seats in Parliament were introduced in 1867 when all Maori men over twenty-one (with no property provision) could vote. By contrast, a property qualification still applied to Europeans so that many remained excluded. Those Maoris with freehold land could vote in general seats until 1893. In 1893 all women, including Maori, were granted the vote.

  1. In the 1850s and 1860s Maoris paid most of the country’s taxes.

In the financial year ended June, 1859, for example, the great majority of government income (£150,471 out of £175,310) was from customs revenue. This is manifestly not from Maori as any separate entity.

  1. Confiscation of lands from rebellious tribes during and after the Maori Wars was a breach of the Treaty.

In the words of Sir Apirana Ngata, the first Maori to graduate from a university and probably the greatest thinker that Maoridom has yet produced, “The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This itself is a Maori custom revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations can not therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.”

  1. In 1863, during the Maori War, Governor Grey “invaded” the Waikato.

This misrepresentation has been bandied about for several years, usually by so-called “professional historians” with an axe to grind. The word “invade” suggests a hostile entry by a foreign power ­e.g. Hitler invading Poland in 1939 and Argentina invading the Falkland Islands in 1981. Since Grey was the Governor of New Zealand, holding legal jurisdiction over the whole country, it was not possible for him to “invade” any part of it. What he did was to lawfully send troops into the Waikato to suppress a rebellion against the sovereign power – something that every state is entitled to do. That is not an “invasion.”

  1. There’s no harm in “co-governance agreements” between Crown and part-Maori.

Wrong. Co-governance agreements are a violation of both democracy and national sovereignty. Co-governance undermines the power of our democracy to make decisions for the general good since unelected tribes have effective veto powers and see things only from their own narrow interests. By his co-governance agreements with Tuhoe and other favoured tribes, Treaty Minister, Christopher Whinlayson, is driving a racist, separatist sword through the nation’s sovereignty and undermining our hard-won democracy.

  1. The Maori name for New Zealand is Aotearoa.

Pre-1840 the Maoris did not have a name for the whole of New Zealand as they had no sense of a Maori nation – they were­ just separate warring-with-one-another tribes.

In 1643 the country was named New Zealand by the States-General (Parliament) of Holland and this has been its name for 370 years. Aotearoa as a fanciful name for New Zealand invented only in 1890 when S. Percy Smith used it as a make-up name for the whole country in his fictional story of Kupe. Nu Tirani appears in the Treaty of Waitangi. “Aotearoa” does not.

  1. Tuheitia of the Waikato is the Maori king.

Like all other New Zealanders Tuheitia is a subject of Queen Elizabeth II and no monarch can be the subject of another. It is legally impossible. He might be a chief – even a high chief, but a king he is not.

  1. Maoris (“tangata whenua”) have a greater claim to New Zealand than other New Zealanders.

There is no such thing as an ethnic Maori and there may not even be any half-castes as a result of several generations of Maoris cross-breeding with other races. We now have a race of part-Maoris with more European blood in them than Maori. So “tangata whenua” (people of the land) is therefore meaningless. The Treaty specifies 1840 Maori as tangata Maori.

Furthermore, in a modern democracy that is committed to equal rights for all citizens it is both absurd and offensive that any racial group should have superior rights to other New Zealanders. The mere chance of whose canoes or boats arrived first is irrelevant.

  1. Maoris deserve special grants and privileges because they are at the bottom of the socio-economic heap.

Yes, a number of part-Maoris are not doing well; more than for other ethnic groups. But struggling citizens of all races should be helped on the basis of need, not race.

Far too much of the taxpayer-funded Treaty settlement and other race-based payouts from NZ taxpayers have gone into the pockets of the pale-faced tribal elite people like the multi-millionaire Irish New Zealander, Stephen (alias Tipene) O’Regan.

  1. The high imprisonment rate of part-Maoris is the result of the Crown not honouring the Treaty of Waitangi.

No. People are imprisoned for things they have chosen to do. Those who are brought up in a good moral environment are less likely to commit crimes.

  1. Most New Zealanders see nothing wrong with Maori privileges; it is only a few fuddy-duddies who object.

Wrong. Some poll results:

* 79% No to special Maori seats in parliament (Submitters to the Constitutional Advisory Panel)

* 82% No to compulsory Maori language in schools (yahoo Xtra poll)

* 96% of non-Maori students of Year 9 and above do NOT learn Maori despite it being an available option in many schools (NZ Herald, 23 July, 2014)

* 85% No to special Maori housing (Bay of Plenty Times, 20 April, 2013)

81% No to “Maori are special” (Close Up poll, July, 2011)

* 81% No to Maori names for North Island and South Island (Stuff poll, 2/4/13)

* 82% No to “h” in Wanganui (Referendum conducted by Wanganui District Council, 2006)

* 79% No to a special Maori voice on the committees of Rotorua Council (Rotorua Daily Post, 9/5/14)

* 82% No to special Maori wards on New Plymouth Council (Taranaki Daily News, 15/5/15)

* 79% No to Maori wards, Waikato District Council, April, 2012

* 80% No to Maori wards, Hauraki District Council, May 2013

* 79% No to Maori wards, Nelson District Council, May, 2012

* 52% No to Maori wards, Wairoa District Council, March, 2012

* 68% No to Maori wards, Far North District Council, March, 2015

* 70% want Maori wards in local government abolished (Consumerlink, Colmar Brunton poll, March, 2012)

* 68% want the Waitangi Tribunal abolished

  1. In the 1800s Maoris “lost” most of their lands.

Apart from the relatively small percentage of land confiscated as a punishment for rebellion in the 1860s (See Myth No. 12) Maoris did not “lose” their lands; they sold them for valuable consideration at a mutually agreed price. Whether they spent the proceeds wisely or not was their own choice. There is a world of difference between “losing” something and selling it.

  1. Those who oppose special rights and privileges for part-Maoris are “racists”.

This is a contradiction in terms and is propagated by people who are either mischievous or just plain dumb. Special rights/privileges for one race are a violation of the democratic principle that we should all be treated equally. To demand equality is not being “racist.” The real racists are those of the radical tribal elite who are trying to subvert our democracy with their endless racist demands.

These false claims by the tribal elite, aided and abetted by certain academics, judges and politicians acting for their own dubious motives, are trying to overturn a way of life in which we are all New Zealanders, equal before the law and with equal representation in government.

A purpose of 1Law4All is to reinforce the values that have made New Zealand what it is and for which our servicemen have died on the battlefield, and to expose the lies and racism which – in the twenty-first century – are tearing our nation apart. The continuing transfer of what were once public assets like forests and the foreshore and seabed ­and even state houses – to small, private tribal groups and the racist institutionalisation of a privileged status for those who happen to have been born part-Maori amount to the most radical change in our recent history and the most disastrous in its long term effects.

Citizens have a responsibility to be informed and, if sufficiently concerned, to cease voting from ancient habit rather than clear thought and an intelligent assessment of what is going on. Both National and Labour have been responsible for creating the mess that we are in and they are hardly the types to get us out of it.


Click the ‘download’ button below to save a copy of these myths for your use and reference. Perhaps print a copy to have on hand, too? (Four A4 pages)
Download

Maori Party makes use of valuable position “and how!”

Maori Party makes use of valuable position “and how!”

From the NZ Herald
Despite a few knee-jerk claims that the Maori Party has sold out, it has not simply rolled over
Marama Fox has taken over from the legendary Tariana Turia. Photo / NZME
Marama Fox has taken over from the legendary Tariana Turia. Photo / NZME

Bill English gave an important speech at Parliament this week about Maori and the state and self-determination.

The Deputy Prime Minister was speaking at the launch of a book – Crossing the Floor – about Maori Party founder Dame Tariana Turia.

It’s about her life, including her split from the Labour Party over its response to the foreshore and seabed court case, the formation of the Maori Party and its achievements.

Turia’s political journey is the stuff of legends.

The mutual admiration and respect between English and Turia was evident while she was in Parliament.

She had ideas, he had power. The admiration has not waned.

English talked about the 1957 Pulitzer-prize winning book by then Senator John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, about acts of political bravery in the United States Senate.

English puts Turia in the same league, she being a woman, he said, with the courage to pursue a vision unchanged “through the dangerous jungle of partisan politics”.

“We have stronger iwi, stronger whanau and a concrete understanding of rangatiratanga, a practical understanding, much more than just a protest slogan.”

Turia, with a unique set of political and personal skills, had brought ideas to the heart of Government week after week. She had, he said, started to fundamentally change the relationship between Maori and the state. Quite some call.

But he should know because while Prime Minister John Key is the figurehead, English manages it through its various strands, be it social service delivery through whanau ora, constitutional aspirations, parameters of Treaty of Waitangi settlements or Maori participation in freshwater management.

One of the reasons English has been willing to embrace managed extensions of rangatiratanga is because he sees the alternative as being worse – a sense of victimhood and reliance on the state.

The trouble with having such a legendary figure as Turia as a party founder is for those who follow.

Turia’s successor as co-leader is new MP Marama Fox, from the Wairarapa. She has huge amounts of energy and more so with the loss of 75kg in weight over two years. She is a sassy mother of nine and despite being a backbencher, has taken Turia’s place on the ministerial committee on poverty.

Te Ururoa Flavell, who succeeded Sir Pita Sharples as co-leader, has had 10 years in Parliament. Unlike Sharples, he is a details person and has been putting his own stamp on the Maori Development portfolio, undoing some of Sharples’ plans for Maori language and broadening reforms to allow Maori land to be harnessed economically.

But Fox and Flavell have struggled for profile this year of the kind that came naturally to Turia.

That is about to change.

They received more profile this week than the rest of the year put together for their support role in the next phase of National’s Resource Management Act reforms.

Despite a few knee-jerk claims that the Maori Party has sold out, it has not simply rolled over to have its tummy tickled.

The Maori Party, which sees itself as the representative of the Treaty partner in Parliament, has been working closely with the Iwi Leaders Group on the bill and made a joint submission to National on what it wanted.

It has succeeded in blocking National’s bid to give equal weighting to economic development as environmental protection.

It also blocked Nick Smith’s bid to end the local government monopoly as consenting authorities ” a plan based on Australian experience where some engineering firms are authorised to give consents.

However, fast-tracking or eliminating the need altogether for some consents will not be what the Maori Party is remembered for.

It is the concept of Iwi Participation Arrangements which have already raised the interest of treaty watchers in the rump of ACT and cries of separatism from New Zealand First leader Winston Peters.

Under the bill, every council within a month of being elected will be required to invite the relevant iwi authority to take part in devising an agreement about how they will take part in plans or policy statements of the council, including the vexed issue of water management policies.

It is intended to be a framework in which arrangements will vary depending on the interest and capacity of the different iwi and of existing arrangements.

The Government has firmly established policy that while iwi have (undefined) rights and interests in water, they are not ownership rights, that there is no generic share of water for Maori, that there will be no national settlement of freshwater claims ” as happened with the pan-tribal fisheries settlement ” and that iwi should be engaged in freshwater management processes catchment by catchment, iwi by iwi, not by means of a one-size-fits-all process.

The proposal will be a lightening rod for those who see any consultation with Maori as special treatment.

Without the proposal, however, the Government would be opening the door to the 1987-2003 era in which the courts effectively determined what New Zealand’s Treaty relationship should be ” a partnership ” and what the Crown’s obligations were as a result of that partnership.

If Maori have rights and interests in water but there is no vehicle by which they can be exercised, an iwi will test its rights in court, and the courts will give an answer which will almost certainly be less palatable to Peters and co than the current proposition.

The irony of Peters’ objections to the Maori Party’s plans for iwi participation is that were it not for him, the Maori Party would not have had the bargaining power to get it in the RMA bill.

Before Peters won the Northland by-election, National had the numbers with ACT to pass any RMA reform.

The Government wants to take back from the courts the task of fashioning Treaty obligations – with the consent of the Maori Party and the co-operation of the Iwi Leaders Group.

English effectively has the overview of extensions of rangatiratanga ” what Maori aspirations are and how far the Government can go in meeting them without compromising democracy or alienating non-Maori.

With the bill going through Parliament the proper way, with no shortcuts, there should be plenty of time to find out where the undercurrents lie.

end.

Despite all the weasley words politicians, our PM and Maori alike say about water not belonging to anyone, having absolute control over our fresh water for, forever, might as well be ownership. It’s exactly the same thing, just without title. And this is what the Iwi Freshwater Group is after by 2020. So the special rights offered to them in the new RMA legislation is just a beginning.

The document below is a Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group presentation. If you look on slide 10, you will see that one Iwi is negotiating a full transfer of Council powers, (over fresh water management), by 2020. We expect this to be the case in all negotiations held between Iwi and Councils on this issue.

Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group Presentation

1 2 3 11
%d bloggers like this: