Racist Lolly Scramble

Racist Lolly Scramble

Vote Treaty Negotiations contains a multi-year appropriation of $1,400 million for the five-year period 2017 to 2021.

Yes – you read that right. 1.4 billion dollars of taxpayers money and taxpayer-owned assets being given to part-Maori in unabashedly racist-vote-buying by National.

It’s presumed that’s in addition to the “$93 million for maori development” mentioned, here.

Remember that any non-part-Maori who wants to object to their customary swimming beach being fraudulently grabbed must pay a Court filing fee of $110 to lodge that objection.

So – lucky you – you get to pay twice. Once to cover the beach stealers costs and another to pay your own.

Vote National for more and more of the same.  Labour or the watermelon party (Greens on the outside, reds on the inside) would be just as bad, if not worse.

The Hobson’s Pledge Road Show

The Hobson’s Pledge Road Show

Don Brash and Casey Costello delivered the Hobson’s Pledge message to 200 people at the Havelock North Function Centre on Tuesday night, 28 Feb 2017.

Casey spoke about the wrong of Maori blaming their ancestry for being deprived of opportunities when they have had Treaty settlements, separate Maori broadcasting, separate Maori preschools and schools, and a separate Maori Party.

Standing on the outside it would seem the consideration and recognition of Maori issues ensured every opportunity for Maori to succeed, the Hawke’s Bay Today newspaper reported Casey as saying.

To read more and related media items, click here.

To hear Casey and Don speak – in person – the next place to be is:

Waikanae Community Centre
30 Utauta Street
Waikanae
Wellington
Monday, April 03, 2017 at 7.00 pm.

No admission fee and no collection! But there will be a book sales table.

Those Brochures!

Those Brochures.

Here they are! For all to see and read!

Spot the deplorable, despicable, bigoted, racist, anti-treaty bits – if you can!

If anyone can point out any parts of those brochures which contain “disgraceful, despicable, racist bigotry or nasty, racist drivel,” then 1Law4All will give Peter Dunne a one year’s free 1Law4All Party membership.

A Racist Attack On Public Rights In Auckland

A Racist Attack On Public Rights In Auckland

– John McLean

In 2014 the National government “returned” fourteen “ancestral cones” (summits of public hills in Auckland) to a newly set up authority of pale-faced tribal elitists who call themselves the Tupuna Maunga Authority.

This is bizarre as the peaks had been sold by tribes in the 19th century for valuable consideration and to “return” them 150 years later is the same as giving to the 5th and 6th generations some house or other property that one set of their ancestors might have sold in the 1850s. It’s called getting two bites of the same cherry.

However, using words like “returning” instead of “handing over” and “ancestral cones” instead of “public land atop the volcanic cones” is typical of the mischievous deceit that has become the hallmark of the Office of Treaty Settlements since the unelected and widely distrusted List M.P., Christopher Finlayson, took it over and started his war against the general public so as to favour tribes that appeal to him, including his ex-client, Ngai Tahu.

The terms of the handover stated that the new Maunga Authority, made up of largely of one-eighth and one-sixteenth non-biological “Maoris” who get well paid to attend its meetings, should hold the cones “in trust for the benefit of all Aucklanders”. It hasn’t taken them long to thumb their noses at this condition as first it was cars, then daffodils and now grazing livestock that they have banished from their new “estate” (formerly public land) and no doubt more restrictions will follow. There are also representatives of Auckland Council on the Authority but in effect it is the tribal elite that calls the shots.

One should not be too surprised at this as the whole thrust of the tribal elite’s grab for public resources seems to be motivated by not only greed but also a sneering contempt for the rest of us, and they rarely lose an opportunity to put the boot in so as to let us know who are our new masters. Practicality, restraint and the public good never seem to enter their calculations in making decisions that bit by bit deprive us of a few more of our rights and public resources.

In 2015 this new race-based Authority banned cars from driving to the top of Mount Eden and in November, 2016, it was announced that in 2017 this ban will be extended to the summits (and thereabouts) of One Tree Hill, Mount Wellington, Mount Albert, Mount Victoria and Mount Roskill. No doubt it will only be a matter of time before they start charging pedestrians for walking up to the tops of these formerly publicly owned assets.

The ones who will suffer the most from this unnecessary and self-indulgent ban will be elderly people who will no longer be able to drive to the top to get a view of their city – as Aucklanders have been free to do ever since the invention of the motor car. At the time the Authority’s chairman, Paul Majurey (a European both biologically and in looks), tried to claim that banning cars from the peaks “would make them safer for pedestrians and respect their cultural significance to local Maori”.

What cultural significance? As Peter Cresswell pointed out in his chapter in “Twisting the Treaty”, it wasn’t until the British arrived in 1840 and established some form of law and order that any Maori tribe could realistically claim that they “owned” Auckland or any part of it. “Before Europeans arrived Maori at best owned only what they used and inhabited,” wrote Mr. Cresswell. “However, in reality Maori actually owned nothing at all before Europeans arrived….When Europeans began arriving on New Zealand’s shores….Auckland was largely deserted , and Maoris living elsewhere were part of a culture that enthusiastically embraced tribalism and its concomitant warfare, slavery and cannibalism. And it was a dying culture – dying because it was unsustainable. When Europeans arrived the Maori population had flattened out at approximately 115,000 and Maori were living a subsistence lifestyle, with short life spans, a limited diet, limited food resources and constant battling over the few resources still remaining.” Many creatures that they formerly ate had been driven to extinction, e.g. frogs and all eleven species of moa.

In his book, Maori Auckland, David Simmons wrote, “When Europeans came to Auckland, they saw only a wilderness of scrub.” The reason why this vital isthmus between two oceans was empty was because it was too dangerous for any tribe to live there as it would soon be replaced by another, stronger tribe with better weapons.

In Mr. Cresswell’s words, “Kiwi Tamaki’s Waiohua tribe had spent the 17th and 18th centuries living and ‘slash and burn’ gardening around Mount Eden and One Tree Hill. These hills had everything a 17th century estate agent could dream of – they offered great defensive positions, fantastic northern slopes for kumara pits, and a delightful location between two sparkling harbours. But in a culture where ownership is held by conquest rather than by right, having everything means that you very soon have nothing – because someone else wants it….In Auckland’s war of all against all, Waiohua, Kawerau, Ngati Maru, Ngati Huarere and Ngati Whatua fought, re-fought and fought again across this narrow strip of land hung between two magnificent harbours. Ngati Paoa from Thames eventually took Mount Eden and many of Auckland’s other volcanic cones from Kiwi Tamaki, only to be ejected themselves about 1780 by Ngati Whatua….In 1818 Ngapuhi swept down from Northland with their guns, and over the next few years slaughtered or enslaved all who remained. Mount Eden and One Tree Hill remained empty. In 1835 Ngati Whatua crept timidly back to Okahu Bay and Greenhithe.”

In the words of David Simmons, “During the Ngapuhi wars Tamaki-makau-rau was almost deserted, and remained so until 1835 when Ngati Whatua returned….In March, 1840, three Ngati Whatua chiefs met Governor Hobson and signed the Treaty of Waitangi….These men saw the pakeha as a possible insurance against further raids.”

“Maori culture in 1840 did not recognise the concept of ‘right’ , and had no concept of ownership beyond the playground notion of grabbing what you can when you can,” wrote Peter Cresswell in “Twisting the Treaty”.

One of the main reasons why the chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi was to secure permanent property rights to the lands that they were currently holding rather than running the risk of being forcefully evicted (and probably killed and eaten) by a stronger tribe.

Therefore, since any ownership other than by right in law is no ownership at all, it is deceitful for the Government to have stated that they were “returning ancestral cones” to this new tribal authority, made up of these various tribes. Even though they were not properly owned by pre-1840 Maori, the government of the day nevertheless paid local tribes for them with good money in the 19th century, thus making it doubly wrong that they should be “returned” six generations later to a small and greedy group with far more European blood in them than Maori.

Not content with asserting their arrogance or, if you like, “mana”, by banning cars, these new cultural warriors then announced that they will also ban grazing livestock from the three summits where cattle have grazed for decades (Mt. Wellington, Mt. Richmond and Mangere Mountain) and sheep from One Tree Hill and Mount St. John.

In seeking to justify this bossy but unnecessary decision, the Maunga Authority said that it was “to protect and restore biodiversity”. This is laughable as the ancestors of these people were the most environmentally destructive people ever to inhabit (temporarily) the slopes of these hills – slashing and burning vegetation and leaving the hills bare – as they were when the first Europeans saw them in the 1830s.

In the words of a Remuera mother, Michelle Noma, “Our kids love to go there; it’s an annual event in spring to see the lambs in an iconic Auckland space.” Yes, but no more.

According to Cornwall Park Trust farm manager, Peter Maxwell, “The livestock keep the long grass tidy and help in controlling the litter by making it easier to spot rubbish that you would not be able to see in long grass. Stock grazing also reduces fire risk.” He is in a better position to know about these things than the new tribal “owners” whose forebears slashed and burned all vegetation around these mountains during their temporary occupations for the very good reason that, since they did not own them in any meaningful sense, there was no reason to hoe, grow or plan for the future.

Other instances of the Authority acting narrowly and racistly rather than for the benefit of all Aucklanders is their locking of the gates to Mount Eden, thus preventing people from going up there to watch the sunrise and sunset, and their banning of daffodils on Mount Hobson.

In the words of Andrew Paul of Orakei in a letter to the New Zealand Herald in March, 2016, “Mount Hobson is one of the jewels of Auckland’s parks. For some 40 to 50 years in the spring, the daffodils on the northern slopes formed a beautiful field of remembrance for the casualties of World War II. On the mountain yesterday morning I was told that local iwi had forbidden the daffodils to be replenished by a team of volunteers, many of them schoolchildren. The bulbs were to be provided by the city. The iwi does not want the daffodils on the mountain and has had the commemorative plaque removed”.

After all, daffodils are flowers from England and, as such, are anathema to these new cultural imperialists. This insult to the war dead is a repeat of what Ngai Tahu did when they were given a park in Greymouth as part of their over-generous and undeserved Treaty settlement that was negotiated for them by their lawyer, the crafty Christopher Finlayson. There were some commemorative gates that had been in the park for seventy years in honour of the dead of the First World War and the first thing Ngai Tahu did was to remove them. This contempt for the nation’s war dead seems to be a feature of the new tribal elite which shows such a deep-seated hatred of the hand that is forever feeding it with taxpayer dollars.

The new and assertive Maunga Authority made these decisions without any public consultation. After all, under tribalism (both old and new) those who don’t have power don’t count. “The unelected Maunga Authority haven’t consulted with the people who actually use the mountain, which makes a mockery of their claims of public support. If they really do have public support, then they shouldn’t be afraid of consultation,” said the ACT leader, David Seymour. Mr. Seymour has called for the Government to review the legislation that allows the Authority to make decisions re accessibility.

Since they have breached the condition on which they received this undeserved gift of so many iconic public places “to be held in trust for the benefit of all Aucklanders”, the Maunga Authority has shown that they are unworthy to govern these formerly public places. By banning cars which discriminates against the elderly, they are NOT holding their new estate “for the benefit of all Aucklanders”. These fourteen hilltops should be returned to the public forthwith.

A further odious aspect of this act of theft from the public is that it is just another step by this National government, under the malign influence of Treaty Minister Finlayson, to create an apartheid like New Zealand where one group of people – the tribal elite – have superior rights to other New Zealanders.

Tribalism, which is putting the tribe ahead of the public good, is what this new Tupuna Maunga Authority is all about. In 1840 the chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi to bring an end to tribalism, that was destroying Maori society and which during the recent Musket Wars had been responsible for killing approximately one third of the Maori population. Finlayson, for what appear to be devious, if not perverted, reasons, is trying to re-create tribalism by his sovereignty-smashing “co-governance” agreements, of which the creation of this Maunga Authority is an example.

Both Finlayson and Paul Majurey, chair of this new Authority, are rich lawyers who have made a lot of money for themselves out of the Treaty industry, which is all about shafting the general public so as to secure special race-based rights, resources and funding for those New Zealanders of a particular bloodline – part-Maoris. Shades of apartheid South Africa. That’s what the Treaty industry is all about – enriching the fat cats of the tribal elite while doing next to nothing for those part-Maoris who are at the bottom of the socio-economic heap. (The term “part-Maoris” is used in the interests of accuracy since there are no longer any full blooded Maoris and apparently not even any half-bloods either.)

First it was the loss of the foreshore and seabed, then the Urewera National Park and now Auckland’s iconic hill tops – all long held public commons that have been swiped from the rest of us for no other reason than National’s need to buy the Parliamentary votes of the race-based and separatist Maori Party.

In the words of NZ First M.P., Richard Prosser, “National appears hellbent on splitting this country down the middle, creating apartheid where once there was harmony, and entrenching for generations to come a mentality of antagonism and division which carves New Zealand up along racial lines, with privilege based on ethnicity and massive handouts of public wealth to an elite few possessed of an ever dwindling percentage of Maori blood.” This is not what our servicemen gave their lives for in two world wars.

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.

Masterton gets Race-Based Council Appointees

Masterton Gets Race-Based Council Appointees

4 May 4 2016

A Wairarapa council has approved the appointment of unelected iwi representatives, with voting rights, to its standing committees. Masterton District Council voted on Wednesday to appoint representatives from Wairarapa’s two iwi, Kahungunu ki Wairarapa and Rangitane o Wairarapa, each with speaking and voting rights, to its policy and finance, and audit and risk, committees.

They also have speaking rights at full council meetings, which ratify the recommendations from the two standing committees. P J Devonshire, general manager of Kahungunu ki Wairarapa, says giving Maori more of a voice on Masterton District Council will benefit all of Wairarapa’s population.

It was hailed as a “courageous call” by Devonshire, who said it showed the country was growing up. “It’s quite a big step . . . To me it shows the maturing of our nation.” He said while some people might label the appointments a case of Maori “special privilege,” that was an increasingly extreme and marginalised view.

Stuff story here.


Just who’s the extremist and marginalist, here?

More apartheid by stealth. Worse still, agreed to – promoted even – by elected councillors. Remember that, later in 2016, when the Council elections are due. Don’t vote for pro-racist candidates of any ethnicity. Give them the stick!

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

Water, Water Everywhere – Until You Want A Drink

Water, Water Everywhere
Until You Want A Drink

In a previous 1Law4All newsletter, the racist grab for the nation’s fresh water was detailed—a crime against the commons. More details of how it’s to be done are now known.

What can you do? What can be done? Presently – perhaps only a little. Until a National Party politician feels the threat of impending unemployment, no MP is going to buck Emperor Shonkey. But if enough people knock on their local MP’s electorate office doors, expressing their dissent with the racist policies of the present government, the chill winds of perhaps having to work in the real world will blow around their ankles and that might change things in Wellington.

Do not be deceived by any platitudes about balance, or redressing past wrongs, or Treaty rights, or any such huff and fluff designed to cover the real agenda. The objective is simple: if ownership is not an option, then it’s control of NZ’s fresh water by racist separatists, for the financial benefit of micro-Maori. Nothing less. There are options on ways to achieve this. One is unaccountable-to-ratepayers, race-based appointees to Regional Councils. All done in a very sly way. Take the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, likely something of a blue print for the rest of NZ . . .

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee [HBRPC] is a permanent Committee established by Government legislation as part of Treaty of Waitangi settlement negotiations. It comprises nine elected representatives and ten race-based appointees. Several elected representatives are known pro-micro-Maori separatist collaborators, a story about one of whom will be covered in a blog post – here – in a few days’ time. For now, here’s the make up of the HBRPC:

Elected Regional Councillors (nine) representing these areas:
* Wairoa (one)
* Napier (three)
* Central Hawke’s Bay (one)
* Ngaruroro (one)
* Hastings (three)

Racially-selected Tāngata Whenua appointees (ten) representing these micro-Maori, tribal groups
* Ngāti Pāhauwera Development and Tiaki Trusts
* Ngāti Hineuru Iwi Inc
* Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana
* Ngāti Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum
* He Toa Takitini
* Mana Ahuriri Incorporated
* Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust
* Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa
* Tūhoe
* He Toa Takitini

Notice that—to start with—the committee has a majority of race-based appointees. The HBRPC tells the Regional Council what it can and can’t do. Once that’s done, if the elected members of the Regional Council don’t like that, they cannot change it without an 80% agreement from the HBRPC. That means the racially-dominated HBRPC has almost total control over decisions made by the Council on all Resource Management Act matters. Including the control and management of fresh water! Do you begin to see what’s going on, here? Then read on . . .

One particularly poisonous platitude is Shonkey’s repeated assertion that “no one owns the water. Don’t be fooled. Given that stance, the Maori Party, Shonkey, Whinlayson and the other racist sycophants have come up with “a workaround.”

Most will be familiar with the term “airspace.” The air above a country – which nobody owns – through which planes fly. But only with the permission – air traffic control – of the nation on the land, below. The new deal struck with the traitors to NZ’s commons is similar to that airspace concept.

Although they wont own the fresh water, micro-Maori will get to control all NZ’s “waterspace.” That’s what’s above the bed of every public lake, river, stream and creek over which our fresh water is stored or flows. Permission to swim in that “waterspace” or to use the water in any other way will only be available from the micro-Maori owners of the land [bed] beneath that “waterspace,” which we’ll call water traffic control. Doubtless involving a fee. Sorry – “koha.” Likely on the basis of no koha – no goha.

There you have it. That’s how control – ownership in all-but-name – of NZ’s fresh water is to be handed over to racially-selected, micro-Maori interests.

Racism and Cultural Identity ­

“Racism” and Cultural Identity

by Reuben P. Chapple

New Zealanders who care about their country are tired of being hectored about “racism” by indigenous pretenders like Lizzie Marvelly (Water Debate Needs Our Iwi On Board – NZ Herald item). Hectored for simply believing that our government should govern for all New Zealanders, rather than being a fount of special privilege for a favoured few.

Racism is often conflated by the ignorant with simple prejudice, which it is not. Principled opposition to unearned racial privilege is not racism. Nor is it typically evidence of prejudice. Racism occurs where a group of prejudiced individuals get together to create a system affording them separate, different, or superior rights to everyone else on the basis of group membership.

The elephant in the room is that even if the Treaty of Waitangi provides for racial privilege (it does not), the “Maori” of today are not the Maori of 1840, but New Zealanders of mixed European-Maori descent who have chosen to identify monoculturally as Maori, elevating one set of ancestors and trampling down another. Yet traditional Maori culture says that one is to honour all ancestors equally.

The reality is that we have a Maori race in name only, with racial mixing giving the lie to the existence of a unique race called Maori. Imported bloodlines have diluted the original Maori race to such an extent that it now exists only as a cultural concept. Denying one’s mixed ancestry and adopting a monocultural identity doesn’t make it go away.

For many decades, there has been no discrete or separate Maori ethnic group. All so-called Maori alive today have European ancestry. Indeed, it would be virtually impossible to find a “Maori” who doesn’t possess more of the blood of the colonisers than that of the colonised.

To illustrate this point, prior to the passage of the Electoral Amendment Act 1975, the legal definition of “Maori” for electoral purposes was “a person of the Maori race of New Zealand or a half-caste descendent thereof.” After panicked complaints from its Maori MPs that soon nobody would be eligible for the Maori Roll, the then-Labour Government changed this to read “or any descendent of such a person.”

Under current electoral law, New Zealanders with Maori ancestry can determine once every electoral cycle if they wish to be on the Maori Roll or the General Roll. We thus have a legal definition of “Maori” that defies definition in the Courts, since it is entirely based on an individual’s periodic decision to identify as “Maori.”

Writing in 1972, historian Joan Metge offers a compelling explanation as to why a subset of New Zealanders today might continue see themselves as “Maori.” She states: “New Zealanders, both Maori and Pakeha, tend to identify others as ‘Maori’ if they ‘look Maori,’ that is if they have brown skin and Polynesian features. Those whose Maori ancestry is not so evident in their appearance are left to make their own choice.”

Since the Maori phenotype tends to predominate in a person’s appearance, Many New Zealanders who are considerably less than half-Maori will be identified by others as Maori whether they like it or not. This psychic wound is often compensated for by aggressively embracing a collectivist Maori identity and seeking utu upon the majority culture these people feel shut out of.

As Frantz Fanon, one of the many disreputable Communists enshrined as intellectual icons by the academic Left, reminds us: “The native is an oppressed person whose constant dream is to become the persecutor.”

The psychological roots of Treatyism may well amount to little more than the hurt child looking for someone to punish. The rest of us should not be obliged to validate someone else’s adjustment issues. Nor should public policy support the notion that anyone who is less than half-Maori be regarded as “Maori.” And nor should it dignify their cultural pretensions, particularly with other people’s money.

Lizzie Marvelly claims on her Facebook page to be “Ngati Whakaue.” If she wasn’t so noisy about this ancestral connection, nothing in her appearance would suggest she was part-Maori. This young woman might better be described as a Pakeha with a dash of Maori blood. The standard response when such an inconvenient truth is held up is: “Maori will decide who is ‘Maori.’ ”

In a free society, individuals are at liberty to enter into groups or combinations for any lawful purpose. Indeed, many choose to do so. There are rugby clubs, bowling clubs, bridge clubs, film clubs, swingers’ clubs, various religious congregations, and any number of other organisations catering to the sporting, cultural, intellectual, and spiritual needs of members.

The right of an individual of mixed European-Maori descent to identify with Maori culture and affiliate to a Maori kin group is not in dispute here. But since this is a personal choice and thus a private matter, Maori groups rightly have the same status as any other community group founded upon principles of voluntary association, such as a rugby club or a bowling club.

And the same moral right as the members of a rugby club or bowling club to demand large sums of money and political patronage from their fellow New Zealanders.

None.

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

1 2 3 6
%d bloggers like this: