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

Ethnicity Anomalies

Ethnicity Anomalies

26 April 2016
The Editor
Northland Age

Many Kiwis are making valid protests about Waitangi claimants with very slight maori bloodlines (ethnicity) and looking for a formula on how to address this anomaly.  Well here’s the solution; it’s called the Ethnicity Equalisation Scheme (EES).

For openers, we must address the quixotic definition of maori in S.2 Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974 which most sensible Kiwis consider to be farcical because it seeks to create a statutory maori race.  If claimants are going to use any level of maori ethnicity for Waitangi claims etc. then a scheme is required with authenticated certified documents to ensure whakapapas are accurate, with Birth Certificates, Driver’s Licences and Passports, etc. endorsed all showing the degree of ethnicity attributed to claimants and this must be the minimum prerequisite legal requirement prior to obtaining any payments from Waitangi claims. All this actioned at the cost of the claimant.

It follows when looking at a tribe of say 2,000 ‘members’ there must be supporting documentation and evidence for each and every tribal member with lists made available for public inspection and then the ethnicity of the whole tribe must be averaged out.

Should the perceived grievance claim  or any other claim (hard to take seriously) for some reason be successful and for example assessed at say $32 million, then if the average maori ethnicity of the tribe is 1/8th the payment out would be only $4 million and the $28 million balance would be withheld along the same lines as the ‘contributory negligence doctrine’ to the extent of 7/8th representing the ethnicity percentage other than maori and funds returned to the NZ taxpayer via the Government, i.e, not paid out.

Now isn’t that a fair and equitable outcome because Kiwis are entitled as of right to know all those who are claiming to be statutory maori are providing accurate documentary proof and word of mouth mumbo jumbo is not good enough. If citizens don’t want special endorsement there is no need to complete any details and they will simply receive a normal Kiwi passport without notation – the choice is theirs. Of course other citizens could also choose to apply for the ethnicity endorsement at their own cost. Current assessments indicate no one can claim to have 50% maori ethnicity and therefore other than by virtue of the statutory definition everyone in NZ must currently be classified as non maori.

Rob Paterson
Matapihi

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

Next Stop: New Zealand! (with or without a flag)

Next Stop: New Zealand! (with or without a flag)

Maori King claim to Auckland opens door for northern giant

King Tuheitia has launched a claim for Auckland extending north to Mahurangi, down the Firth of Thames and across to the Manukau Harbour and to Piha.

He told more than 500 people gathered at Turangawaewae Marae in Ngaruawahia, including Prime Minister John Key, he was determined to see the claim through. He said the tribe had moved into a “new era” of rights and claims.

If you thought Auckland’s purple dot disease was bad enough, how about just one big dot to cover it all?

New era obviously moves the greedy and grasping on from the

 

I Want It


………….to


I Want It ALL!

 

Wake up, New Zealand. You are sleep-walking your way to South African-style apartheid.

You don’t have to be mad to live here, but it surely helps.

Government must fix Maori obesity: researchers

Another article published in the Granny Herald which perpetuates the myth that all ills that befall Maori are the fault of the wicked white colonialists.

Really?

Seriously?

When are people going to stop being taken in by these accusations? You cannot judge the past by today’s standards. Things, life, was a whole lot different back then (1840 and the colonising years after 1840). Especially for Maori.

My comments, in italics, continue below in the article:

Government must fix Maori obesity: researchers

By Martin Johnston

Photo / Thinkstock

Photo / Thinkstock

The legacy of colonisation has predisposed Maori to having much higher rates of obesity than the total New Zealand population (how exactly? They never tell us how these things have had the effect they claim. They just make claims and idiots believe them) and the Government must do much more to address this inequity, a group of Otago University researchers say.

Citing the 2008/09 Adult Nutrition Survey, they say nearly half of Maori were obese.

The same survey found that 28 per cent of the total population were obese – and nearly 60 per cent of Pasifika.

“Since European settlement and the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, Maori have been disadvantaged as a consequence of colonisation and repeated breaches of the Treaty …,” (again – how and where is the proof?) the researchers, Drs Reremoana Theodore, Rachael McLean and Lisa Te Morenga, say today in an commentary piece in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health.

“Loss of land resulted in high levels of poverty and loss of access to traditional food sources for many Maori. The Maori experience, which has been mirrored by many other indigenous groups, has resulted in: wide-scale migration into urban centres; increased consumption of cheap processed foods high in fat and sugar; reduced physical activity levels; and rising rates of obesity and cardiovascular diseases.”

(loss of traditional food sources occurred because they eat them to extinction, not because of loss of land, and the land was not ‘lost’, it was sold by the chiefs who were happy for a quick buck. They land was not making them any money before they sold it! Traditional food sources for Maori – NZ has no native land mammals, so their diet consisted of seafood, birds and plants, mostly fern and kumera before the colonialists introduced other vegetables. No one stopped them going fishing, or gathering shell fish. They could still grow their own vegetables. They had hunted and eaten most edible sized birds to extinction before the Treaty was signed – so what traditional food sources did they lose access to exactly? If life in their traditional villages was so wonderful, why did they migrate to the urban centres? Cheap processed foods with high fat and sugar are relatively new in New Zealand. They certainly weren’t around in the 1800s or early 1900s, so how can you blame colonisation for Maori eating them? No one is making them eat them. No one is forcing them. It’s not just cheap processed foods either – what about their famous ‘boil-ups’ which are full of grease? No one is forcing them to be less active. They are victims of their own poor decision making, not of colonisation!)

They add that Maori tended to be channelled into working-class jobs until the 1970s and were later affected disproportionately, compared with Europeans, by structural economic changes that were accompanied by higher levels of unemployment.

(“Channelled”? Given the level of educational achievement of most Maori at that time, working-class jobs was probably all they could get. Saying that they were “channelled” is an emotive attempt at blaming the colonialists, once again, for the under achievement of Maori. Well educated Maori made much more of themselves and included some great and well known policitians such as Apiarata Ngata, long before the 1970s.)

They urge a focus on the “historically driven social determinants of obesity” to avoid blaming Maori – and their choices – for their own ill health. (of course – can’t have them taking any responsibility for themselves and their choices can we? noooo, blame the nasty colonialists and the Crown and make them pay to fix the problem, like they always do.)

The researchers lament the demise of Health Eating-Health Action and its associated anti-obesity programmes. They also support the current Government’s Whanau Ora and Healthy Families NZ schemes as a “starting point for addressing obesity”, but say much more must be done and that the Government has a treaty responsibility to work in partnership with Maori to and to ensure Maori health equity. (The Treaty is NOT a partnership agreement and if there is an article in the Treaty which makes the Government responsible for the health of Maori, then it must be still lost somewhere because having read the Treaty many times I’ve still not found it!)

“A key issue, however, with Healthy Families NZ is that it focuses on educating people … to make better choices. Evidence increasingly suggests that interventions that rely on individual agency may actually increase socioeconomic inequalities in obesity.”

The policies they propose are in line with those of public health researchers who call for sugar and fat taxes and regulations to control the marketing of unhealthy food and drink to children – ideas repeatedly rejected by the Government. (rejected for good reason – why make everyone pay for the bad choices of a few?)

The Health Ministry, in response to the article, told Radio New Zealand that the creation of the Healthy Families NZ scheme in 10 locations was intended to encourage families to choose healthy foods, be physically active, maintain a healthy weight, not to smoke and to drink only moderate amounts of alcohol. The scheme was part of the Government’s approach to promoting good health.

Giving away the Foreshore and the Beaches

Giving away the Foreshore and the Beaches

Map 1In Twisting the Treaty, the Marine and Coastal Area Act is described as “the greatest swindle in New Zealand history” and that is exactly how it is turning out. A large part of the North Island (see map) is already under claim by greedy and opportunistic tribal groups. Often led by people who are only one eighth or one sixteenth Maori.

While some claims are decided in secret by the biased Treaty Minister, Christopher Finlayson, others are proceeding through the High Court process.

The secret deals which strip the public of long held rights to our beaches and coast are done without the public having any input or being consulted in any way. To give some semblance of “respectability” to these dirty deals, Finlayson is handing oversight of them (on a jobs for the girls basis) to people from whom he gets the result he wants. People like Judith Potter, a retired High Court judge, whom he is paying with taxpayers’ money to advise him on the Ngati Porou claim on the East Coast. She has shown her bias from the start.

Known for her arrogance, she has carried this unfortunate trait over to her new job as Finlayson’s puppet by refusing to hear any argument against granting customary marine title to tribes from the Council of Outdoor Recreational Associations of New Zealand (CORANZ). That organisation represents tens of thousands of outdoor recreational people whose rights will be adversely affected by any grant of customary marine title that she might recommend.

Not all claims for customary marine title are going through Finlayson’s secret deal negotiations. Some are going through the High Court process – as allowed by the Act. Even here we can see the full extent of Finlayson’s machinations.

When a tribe wants to claim customary marine title through the High Court, it is required by the Marine and Coastal Area Act to insert one advertisement in the Public Notices section of one local daily paper ONCE ONLY. Finlayson sneaked this into the Act so as to keep the public in the dark as much as possible about this massive swindle of their rights. Who reads the Public Notices anyway?

Map 2Thus did a claim for two of the Titi islands, south-west of Stewart Island, get to the High Court without CORANZ or any other organisation becoming aware of it. When CORANZ eventually found out, they applied to become a party to the action so as to protect the public interest (nobody else was going to) but they were rejected for being out of time.

It is not possible for any organisation to read the Public Notices in every daily newspaper every day and so the claim over the Titi islands is more likely to proceed for the lack of opposition to the claim by anyone like CORANZ. It is the traditional role of the Attorney-General to protect the public interest but, as the biased and deeply compromised Treaty Minister Finlayson is also the Attorney-General, the people of New Zealand no longer have a Minister to protect the public interest protection that they have had in the past.

Fortunately CORANZ did become aware of the cheeky and greedy claim to the whole of the foreshore and seabed of the Mahia peninsula (out to 22.2 km at sea) and from Paritu to the mouth of the Nuhaka River. The claim was lodged by the local part-Maori radical, Pauline Tangiora, JP, QSO, QSM, believed to have been born in Woodville and grown up in that area and Palmerston North.

Despite her civil awards, her past actions have included physically trying to stop the pouring of concrete for a public boat ramp and taking the Mahia Boating and Fishing Club to court to try to stop them building their clubhouse. She lost that one and was ordered to pay the club some thousands of dollars in costs. That was several years ago and they have never seen a cent of it. Yet she has the resources to mount an expensive claim as the spokesperson for her adopted coastal tribal group. In other words, she uses the law when it suits her and ignores it when it doesn’t.

By her claim Pauline Tangiora is causing unnecessary racial divisions and much unrest among landowners and local part-Maori, who have got along well together for generations. Furthermore she has only a very small amount of Maori blood and, but for her facial tattoo – presumably to give her some credibility – she could very well pass for a European.

Her claim is completely unjustifiable as the Rongomaiwahine tribe, which she fronts, has NOT had continuing and exclusive use of the foreshore and seabed of the Mahia peninsula as required by the Act in order to get customary marine title. So, in order to protect the public rights of access to the beaches and sea around this peninsula, CORANZ has become a party to oppose the Rongomaiwahine claim in the High Court – as has the Gisborne District Council and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, but the Councils’ resolution to see the matter through is extremely doubtful.

Map 3The case is costing CORANZ a lot of money in legal fees for, as with any complicated civil action, there is a hearing, then more papers, another hearing, and so on.

Here can be seen the full extent of Finlayson’s deviousness as, like his fellow lawyer, Geoffrey Palmer, who allowed claims to the Waitangi Tribunal to go all the way back to 1840, it seems that the greatest reason for the Marine and Coastal Area Act is to make things as complicated as possible so as to create a lawyers’ bonanza – just as Palmer did with hundreds of millions of dollars having gone into the pockets of lawyers from his Treaty process. And lots more to come.

Finlayson has done everything to prevent the public having any say in his theft of the foreshore and seabed. Governments are meant to protect the public interest but this Key government puts private interests – e.g. Sky City and the tribal elite – ahead of the public interest and that is why it is so dangerous.

CORANZ is doing the job that the government should be doing. Its financial resources to pay the continuing legal bills on this one Mahia claim are anything but unlimited and it desperately needs donations so that it can continue to oppose the Rongomaiwahine claim which, if left unopposed, might well succeed in whole or in part even though the tribe does not fulfil the requirements of the Act. These days judges do funny things – e.g. Sian Elias’ disgraceful behaviour in the Ngati Apa case when she deliberately ignored the stated law to indulge her own prejudices.

We have reached a terrible state when a relatively small, private organisation like CORANZ has to uphold the public interest because the government is failing to do so. Worse, in his secret negotiations with tribes who pursue that route rather than through the High Court, Finlayson is doling out to his favoured tribes rights that he has stolen off the public of New Zealand by his thieving and racist Marine and Coastal Area Act

Map 41Law4All is very concerned at this theft of public commons and violation of the public interest for the sake of the racist and separatist agenda of this government. That is why 1Law4All sponsored a public meeting on the matter on 2nd February at the Napier Sailing Club. Dr. Hugh Barr, the secretary of CORANZ and author of the book, The Gathering Storm over the Foreshore and Seabed,  spoke to about 80 people and informed them of the issues.

1Law4All will continue to oppose this Mahia claim on the grounds that it is racist, separatist, thieving and does not meet the requirements of the Act. We strongly urge our members to bring this matter to the attention of as many people as possible. Perhaps even donate to the special account that has been set up by CORANZ for its legal costs and for no other purpose. It is CORANZ Rongomaiwahine Trust Fund Account 03-0566-0207094-26 or cheques to the same fund at CORANZ, P.O. Box 1876, Wellington 6140. This is one thing that we can do to ensure that future generations will have the same rights and enjoyment of the beaches and coast that we have. For now!

The beaches and seabed of our country should belong to all New Zealanders EQUALLY – as they did before Key’s National government descended into the muck of racist politics for selfish and crooked reasons. We are all New Zealanders whatever the colour of our skins or our bloodlines and there is nothing more repugnant than legislation that gives superior rights to people of a particular race or tribe.

We all pay the same taxes, we are all liable for service in war time, so why should people with one particular bloodline in a coastal tribe be given superior rights over other citizens? That is a throwback to the tribalism and feudalism that the chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi to get away from.

If we don’t stand up for our rights and for a democratic and non-racial New Zealand, then we will soon be second class citizens in the land that was built by the sweat and toil of out pioneer forebears.

1 2 3 7
%d bloggers like this: