Lolly Scramble

Lolly Scramble

Interesting how National gets so much. In 2014, private donations gave National a $4 million dollar war chest to sucker NZ voters. So it seems that the system is, ahhh, ‘arranged’ to favour the larger, existing parties. And – of course – only registered political parties actually get the financial support and 1Law4All has not yet re-registered for this year’s general election. and it costs to register and it costs to lodge a party list and it costs for the post-election audits and . . . .

. . . it’s not unreasonable to think that the way things are is intended to favour the status quo. After all, the bigger parties alternating in government get to set the Rules.

 

Hastings Council Cans Maori Wards Vote Plan

Is The Tide Turning?

Hastings Council Cans Maori Wards Vote Plan

A Hastings District Council Committee favours the status quo after discussion over Maori wards.

A heartfelt, emotional discussion preceded the Hastings District Council-Maori joint committee’s decision yesterday to recommend that the council not introduce Maori wards for the district at this time.

Councillors Henare O’Keefe and Bayden Barber were concerned that going through the process of a poll to decide on Maori wards could be unnecessarily divisive and damaging, and likely to be unsuccessful.

“I do not think Maori wards are in the interests of the people – we would be on a hiding to nothing going back to a referendum,” Mr O’Keefe said.

“Regardless of ethnicity you get to this table by doing the hard yards – you don’t need Maori wards for that.”

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

A Two Fingers to a Politically Correct Elite

A Two Fingers to a Politically Correct Elite

Ian O’Doherty

13/11/2016

Tuesday, November 8, 2016 – either a day that will live in infamy, or the moment when America was made great again? The truth, as usual, will lie somewhere in the middle. After all, contrary to what both his supporters and detractors believe, Trump won’t be able to come into office and spend his first 100 days gleefully ripping up all the bits of the Constitution he doesn’t like.

But even if the American election’s seismic shock-wave doesn’t signal either the sky falling or the start of a bright new American era, the result was, to use one of The Donald’s favourite phrases, huge. It is, in fact, a total game changer.

In decades to come, historians will still bicker about the most poisonous, toxic and stupid election in living memory. They will also be bickering over the same vexed question – how did a man who was already unpopular with the public and who boasted precisely zero political experience beat a seasoned Washington insider who was married to one extremely popular president and who had worked closely with another? The answer, ultimately, is in the question.

History will record this as a Trump victory, which of course it is. But it was also more than that, because this was the most stunning self-inflicted defeat in the history of Western democracy.

Hillary Clinton has damned her party to irrelevance for at least the next four years. She has also ensured that Obama’s legacy will now be a footnote rather than a chapter. Because the Affordable Care Act is now doomed under a Trump presidency and that was always meant to be Obama’s gift, of sorts, to America.

How did a candidate who had virtually all of the media, all of Hollywood, every celebrity you could think of, a couple of former presidents and apparently, the hopes of an entire gender resting on her shoulders, blow up her own campaign?

I rather suspect that neither Donald nor Hillary know how they got to this point.

Where she seemed to expect the position to become available to her by right – the phrase “she deserves it” was used early in the campaign and then quickly dropped when her team remembered that Americans don’t like inherited power – his first steps into the campaign were those of someone chancing their arm. If Trump wasn’t such a stoic teetotaler, many observers would have accused him of only doing it as a drunken bet.

But the more the campaign wore on, something truly astonishing began to happen – the people began to speak. And they began to speak in a voice which, for the first time in years in the American heartland, would not be ignored.

Few of the people who voted for Trump seriously believe that he is going to personally improve their fortunes. Contrary to the smug, middle-class media narrative, Trump voters aren’t all barely educated idiots.

They know what he is; of course they do. It’s what he is not that appeals to them.

Clinton, on the other hand, had come to represent the apex of smug privilege. Whether it was boasting about her desire to shut down the remaining coal industry in Virginia, or calling half the electorate a “basket of deplorables,” she seemed to operate in the perfumed air of the elite, more obsessed with coddling idiots and pandering to identity and feelings than improving the hardscrabble life that is the lot of millions of Americans.

Also, nobody who voted for Trump did so because they wanted him as a spiritual guru or life coach.

But plenty of people invested an irrational amount of emotional energy into a woman who was patently undeserving of that level of adoration.

That’s why we’ve witnessed such fury from her supporters – they had wrapped themselves so tightly in the Hillary flag that a rejection of her felt like a rejection of them. And when you consider that many American colleges gave their students Wednesday off class because they were too ‘upset’ to study, you can see that this wasn’t a battle for the White House – this became a genuine battle for America’s future direction. And, indeed, for the West.

We have been going through a cultural paroxysm for the last 10 years – the rise of identity politics has created a Balkanised society where the content of someone’s mind is less important than their skin colour, gender, sexuality or whatever other attention-seeking label they wish to bestow upon themselves. In fact, where once it looked like racism and sexism might be becoming archaic remnants of a darker time, a whole new generation has popped up which wants to re-litigate all those arguments all over again.

In fact, while many of us are too young to recall the Vietnam War and the social upheaval of the 1960s, plenty of older observers say they haven’t seen an America more at war with itself than it is today.

One perfect example of this new America has been the renewed calls for segregation on campuses. Even a few years ago, such a move would have been greeted with understandable horror by civil rights activists – but this time it’s the black students demanding segregation and “safe spaces” from whites. If young people calling for racial segregation from each other isn’t the sign of a very, very sick society, nothing is.

The irony and hypocrisy of Clinton calling Trump and his followers racist while she was courting Black Lives Matter was telling. After all, no rational white person would defend the KKK, yet here was a white women defending both BLM and the New Black Panthers – explicitly racist organisations with the NBP, in particularly, openly espousing a race war if they don’t get what they want.

Fundamentally, Trump was attractive because he represents a repudiation of the nonsense that has been slowly strangling the West. He represents – rightly or wrongly – a scorn and contempt for these new rules. He won’t be a president worried about micro-aggression, or listening to the views of patently insane people just because they come from a fashionably protected group. He also represents a glorious two fingers to everyone who has become sick of being called a racist or a bigot or a homophobe – particularly by Hillary supporters who are too dense to realise that she has always actually been more conservative on social issues than Trump.

That it might take a madman to restore some sanity to America is, I suppose, a quirk that is typical to that great nation – land of the free and home to more contradictions than anyone can imagine.

Trump’s victory also signals just how out of step the media has been with the people. Not just American media, either. In fact, the Irish media has continued its desperate drive to make a show of itself with a seemingly endless parade of emotionally incontinent gibberish that, ironically, has increased in ferocity and hysterical spite in the last few days.

The fact that Hillary’s main cheerleaders in the Irish and UK media still haven’t realised where they went wrong is instructive and amusing in equal measure. They still don’t seem to understand that by constantly insulting his supporters, they’re just making asses of themselves.

One female contributor to this newspaper said Trump’s victory was a “sad day for women.” Well, not for the women who voted for him it wasn’t.

But that really is the nub of the matter – the ‘wrong’ kind of women obviously voted for Trump. The ‘right’ kind went with Hillary. And lost.

The Irish media are not alone in being filled largely with dinner-party liberals who have never had an original or socially awkward thought in their lives. They simply assume that everyone lives in the same bubble and thinks the same thoughts – and if they don’t, they should.

Of the many things that have changed with Trump’s victory, the bubble has burst. Never in American history have the polls, the media and the chin-stroking moral arbiters of the liberal agenda been so spectacularly, wonderfully wrong.

It was exactly that condescending, obnoxious sneer towards the working class that brought them out in such numbers, and that is the great irony of Election 2016 – the Left spent years creating identity politics to the extent that the only group left without protection or a celebrity sponsor was the white American male. That it was the white American male who swung it for Trump is a timely reminder that while black lives matter, all votes count –
even the ones of people you despise.

You don’t have to be a supporter of Trump to take great delight in the sheer, apoplectic rage that has greeted his victory. If Clinton had won and Trump supporters had gone on a rampage through a dozen American cities the next night, there would have been outrage – and rightly so.

But in a morally and linguistically inverted society, the wrong-doers are portrayed as the victims. We saw that at numerous Trump rallies – protesters would disrupt the event, claiming their right to free speech (a heckler’s veto is not free speech) and provoking people until they got a dig before running to the media and claiming victim-hood.

Yet none of Clinton’s rallies were shut down by her opponents (unlike Trump’s aborted Chicago meeting) and the great mistake the anti-Trump zealots should have learned was that just thinking you’re right isn’t enough – you need to convince others as well.

But, ultimately, this election was about people saying “enough with the bullshit.” This is a country in crisis, and most Americans don’t care about transgender bathrooms, or “safe” spaces, or government speech laws. This was about people taking some control back for themselves.

It was about them saying that they won’t be hectored and bullied by the toddler tantrums thrown by pissy and spoiled millennials, and they certainly won’t put up with being told they’re deplorable, stupid and wicked just because they have a difference of opinion.

But, really, this election is about hope for a better America; an America which isn’t obsessed with identity and perceived ‘privilege’; an America where being a victim isn’t a virtue and where you don’t have to apologise for not being up to date with the latest list of socially acceptable phrases.

Trump’s victory was a two fingers to the politically correct. It was a brutal rejection of the nonsense narrative which says Muslims who kill Americans are somehow victims. It took the ludicrous Green agenda and threw it out. It was a return, on some level, to a time when people weren’t afraid to speak their own mind without some self-elected language cop shouting at them. Who knows, we may even see Trump kicking the UN out of New York.

Frankly, if you’re one of those who gets their politics from Jon Stewart, CNN and Twitter, look away for the next four years, because you’re not going to like what you see. The rest of us, however, will be delighted.

This might go terribly, terribly wrong. Nobody knows – and if we have learned anything this week, it’s that, “nobody knows nuthin.” But just as the people of the UK took control back with Brexit, the people of America did likewise with their choice for president.

It’s called democracy.

Deal with it.

Ian O’Doherty is a columnist who works for the Irish Independent.

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.

Who To Vote For

Deciding on Who To Vote For

Those Regional, local Councils & Hospital Boards postal voting papers will arrive in your letter box soon – if they’re not already there. There should also be a candidate profiles booklet. A close examination of that booklet might help you sort the democrats from the racists, as you ponder who to vote for.

To delve deeper, you may well need to make some form of direct contact with the candidates, which includes new aspirants, as well as those seeking re-election. So what are you going to ask candidates to determine if they support one law for all, or a different law for part-Maori?

Some suggested questions:

First thing to keep in mind is: KISS (Keep it simple, stupid)

Make your questions direct, unambiguous and such that a yes or no answer is applicable. And do press for a Yes / No. Don’t accept vague or conditional answers. Make it clear that a NO answer to the question about whether they totally support the concept of a one law for all democracy will result in you crossing that person off your list of who to vote for.

How does this sound?

I understand that you are a candidate for xxxxxxxxxxx Council. I believe in equality of citizenship and seek an answer from you, to the following questions:

1. Do you support the proposition that there should be one or more special Maori ward rolls on the Council, in which only those with some part-Maori ancestry can vote? Yes or No

2. Do you believe that any ethnic group or groups should – solely by virtue of being a particular ethnic group – be allowed to sit on any committee of the Council, with or without voting rights? Yes or No

3. Do you believe that when the Council has any “consultation with part-Maori / iwi” that the ratepayers should pay for the consultation meeting attendance expenses of such part-Maori / iwi representatives? Yes or No

Remember that questions about democracy are disturbing for some.

Council Adverts Are On II

Council Adverts Are On II

In Hastings, Wanganui, and the Bay of Plenty, there are Council candidates who endorse one law for all and want no part of racism in Council representation, funding or appointments.

1Law4All supports all such candidates. The second advertising shot is in the breach to be fired in Hastings, this week.

Porter advert 1

Offers of help by locals in assisting these candidates is actively sought. Please e-mail the 1Law4All office.

Council Adverts Are On

Council Adverts Are On

In Wanganui, Hastings and Bay of Plenty, there are Council candidates who endorse one law for all and want no part of racism in Council representation, funding or appointments.

1Law4All supports all such candidates. The first shots have been fired in Wanganui.

Brougham Advert 1

Offers of help by locals in assisting these candidates is actively sought. Please e-mail the 1Law4All office.

Council Elections Are Nigh

Council Elections Are Nigh

Not too far away now, so get prepared.

One thing you can do is ask a leading question of all candidates. Then, possibly, an advert like the one below could be placed in the local paper.

Any suggestions?

vote_against_racism_2_boxed

ADDENDUM

Local volunteers will be needed to garner the necessary information. And the process must be accurate. Attributions for or against any race-based stance cannot be published on the basis of hearsay. I.e. 1Law4All does not want to mis-represent any candidate’s position. And candidate means any ‘new faces,’ as well as those standing for re-election. That likely means getting something in ‘writing,’ whether on paper or by e-communication.

Volunteers for this important candidate screening task should click here to contact the 1Law4All office.

When Defending Democracy is Racism

When defending democracy is described as racism, all New Zealanders must know that their democracy is in grave danger.


TVNZ to review complaints about Mike Hosking’s comments on Mayor Andrew Judd

9 May  2016

After TVNZ’s Seven Sharp aired a segment on the abuse New Plymouth mayor Andrew Judd received for proposing a Maori ward for local government councils, Mike Hosking added his own two cents’ worth.

“I’d never personally attack him obviously but sad to say he’s completely out of touch with middle New Zealand. There’s nothing wrong with Maori representation on councils because any Maori that wants to stand for a council is more than welcome to do so and they can sell their message and if they’re good enough they’ll get voted on,” Hosking said.

In a statement Radio New Zealand received from TVNZ, a spokesperson for the broadcaster said a formal complaint [of “racist” remarks] had been laid against Hosking and a committee would review the complaint in the coming days.

Hosking’s comments have also been condemned by his own colleagues Miriama Kamo and Scotty Morrison on TVNZ show Marae. Pictured below are the media’s moaning micro-Maori monstering Mike over his comments on democracy.

marae_moaners

It’s worth noting how inaccurate the 2016 media reports are on this. Muddy-brained Mayor Andrew Judd did not propose a Maori ward. He voted for one! One perspective is in an older story from 2014.

Horse bolts over Maori ward
24/09/2014
New Plymouth councillor John McLeod sensationally resigned moments after a the creation of a Maori ward was passed by the council. The councillor  handed in his resignation mid-meeting, after the council voted seven to six in favour of establishing a Maori ward for the 2016 local body elections.

Mayor Andrew Judd, deputy mayor Heather Dodunski, and councillors Shaun Biesiek, Gordon Brown, Craig McFarlane, Marie Pearce and Howie Tamati voted in favour of a Maori ward.


Click here to be transferred to 1Law4All’s earlier item on this storm in a teacup.

The full Stuff story is here.

1 2 3 5
%d bloggers like this: