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.

Sweet Sue or Auntie Acerbic

Sweet Sue or Auntie Acerbic?

Here’s an opportunity for all you regular blog contributors to provide 1Law4All with some insights. The nub is simple.

In this election year, when campaigning against the racist policies of National, Labour, Greens et al, should the tenor by nice or strident? Should 1Law4All go for the jugular, or be measured and modest?

It matters not whether it’s words or pictures – what shall it be?

Consider the images you’ll see if you click the links below – various facebook pages. Clicking on the links will open a new tab in your web browser.

Picture No. 1    Picture No. 2   Picture No. 3   Picture No. 4

Are they over-the-top? About right? Too pussyfoot? Those images and perhaps more like them can be seen on the 1Law4All facebook page.

Most bloggers will recognise the imprimatur of John Ansell.


On another, but related matter, it’s said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so how does this sound for an election jingle?

Make New Zealand ONE Again

Would you wear a cap or tee shirt emblazoned with these slogans?



If so, by the end of Monday 25 March, you should see them available to buy, along with other designs, from 1Law4All’s shop by clicking here.

Save

Getting The Message Through

Getting The Message Through

This Australian message could also apply to many other Western nations. New Zealand included.


When our feminists ignore the female genital mutilation, oppression of women, rape of little children of both sexes, we have a problem.

When our politicians condemn an elected member of the Dutch Parliament for coming to Australia to express his views, we have a problem.

When Australians are callously murdered in cold blood by immigrants of any nationality, religion or race and our government offers sympathy to the family of the murderer before offering sympathy to the family of the victim then we have a problem.

When Australians are living below the poverty line and have nowhere to live while immigrants of any nationality, religion or race are prioritised by the government, then we have a problem.

When 16,000 English speaking skilled professional workers are refused visas and 12,000 uneducated, non-English speaking refugees are accepted, then guess what? We have a problem.

When Australians are called racists and bigots for speaking out about their concerns about the above, then again, we as a nation have a problem.

When people prefer to debate the best bachelor or best contestant on X Factor to debating our nation’s future, our children’s future and our grand children’s future – well you’ve got it: we have a problem.

When our news is censored and we have to delve in to the Internet to find out what is happening in the world and in our own country, dare I say it? We have a problem.

The one thing that sets Australia apart from almost any other nation on earth is the Aussie spirit. It can be seen as a she’ll be right mate attitude that suggests apathy; or she’ll be right mate because we will take care of it.

I went and saw Bridge of Lies yesterday and it is well worth the watch.

The Berlin Wall was put up to separate two different political views. It was a physical wall. Today, we have a wall being built in Australia. It is not made of bricks and mortar. It is made of censorship, political correctness and insidious manipulation through media control, Acts of Parliament and social media trolls. There is no razor wire, no watch towers. Just the ability to call someone a racist.

I am reminded of the words in the old childhood saying: Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. Well, today, apparently words can hurt you, but only if you live on the side of the wall that our government and politicians have decided is the “right” side of the wall.

No longer are people in Australia even able to scale a wall. Bullets are not needed. To shoot us down, all that is needed is to call us racists or bigots. Or worse.

I am hoping that the Aussie “She’ll be right mate” translates to “don’t worry, we will take care of it” and rise up and say that this is our country.

Many of us came from convict backgrounds, sent in to exile for stealing a coat or a loaf of bread or a silver spoon.

Some came for murder and robbery or prostitution. Tough people.

Many came from China to work on the gold fields.

Some came from Italy to work on the Snowy Mountain scheme.

Many of us came to Australia as ‘ten pound poms.’

Some came from Hungary during the revolution.

Some came from Vietnam during the Vietnam war.

But they all came for a chance to work and start a new life. And they worked hard.

The Greeks, Serbs, and Irish – so many more that it would be impossible to name.

There were no hand-outs – no privileges offered.

These people were given a chance to start a new life, in Australia, to become Australians.

And Australians they became.

They learned English and embraced our country while offering the gift of their skills, food and culture and music.

We accepted that gift and sat together at the same table and laughed and drank their wine, ate their food, danced to their music and married and loved their people. As they did us.

I have spoken with friends from Hungarian, Italian, etc., backgrounds and while they embrace and celebrate their roots, they consider themselves Australian.

The common denominator with this terrible situation that we find ourselves in is that our current immigrant population do not want to embrace our culture. They want to destroy it.

They do not want to learn our language. They want to annihilate it.

They do not want to work. They want us to work for them.

Friends, this is not a refugee crisis. This is a self imposed Australian crisis. I fear that it will be too late if something does not happen while we still have enough Aussies left.

Larry Pickering

(abridged)

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.

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

Racism – So what is racism?

So what is racism?

The Oxford New Zealand Dictionary online defines it as:

The inability or refusal to recognize the rights, needs, dignity, or value of people of particular races or geographical origins. More widely, the devaluation of various traits of character or intelligence as ‘typical’ of particular peoples. The category of race may itself be challenged, as implying an inference from trivial superficial differences of appearance to allegedly significant underlying differences of nature; increasingly evolutionary evidence suggests that the dispersal of one original people into different geographical locations is a relatively recent and genetically insignificant matter.

The Cambridge Dictionaries Online define it as:

The belief that people’s qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races.

The Mirriam-Webster online Dictionary as:

A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

Nowhere in the above do we see that disagreeing with another group or race’s ideology is racist.

Nowhere do we see that wishing to preserve our own rights and lifestyles is racist.

Yet all over the world, and for us, particularly in New Zealand, we are constantly being accused of being racist if we dare to disagree with anything a part-Maori says or does. And God help us if we dare to criticise a part-Maori for their actions! Even though criticism is not racism.

This bullying tactic of shouting down any opposition to their plans and schemes as racist is just that, a tactic. Designed to deny a voice to anyone who disagrees with them.
It has been going on for so long that most people no longer know what real racism is or isn’t. But one thing they do know, and that is that being called ‘racist’ is not a pleasant thing. Most people will back down under those kinds of accusations. Even when it isn’t true. They do not want their friends and colleagues to consider them racists. They don’t want to consider themselves as racists. And since the other side are shouting ‘racist’ and pointing the finger so determinedly, objecting or denying the label becomes an impossible task. The mud will stick no matter how loudly the accusations are denied.

And because most people have no idea what racism is, they will believe those accusations because they are being shouted by a group or person seen as underprivileged or a minority, and therefore, supposedly a person without power.

This tactic has been used so successfully and for so long in New Zealand, that some part-Maori think they can do anything they please with impunity. That everyone from the Prime Minister down are so afraid of the ‘R’ word and its connotations, that no one will object loudly enough to have any effect on their plans and aspirations.

liberalshout-racism
Unfortunately, they are right.

But there are grave dangers in allowing the fear of a word to change the way we act, think and speak. It denies people the right to have their views heard and considered – from which a better more mutually agreeable arrangement may be formed. Removing the resentment and distrust that are currently forming in our society with special rights and privileges being sought and given to one part of the population.

It allows injustice to thrive and truth to be dismissed, distorted or treated with disdain.

It allows normally viewed abhorrent practices to continue unabated, because dealing with it becomes a political hot potato.

For an example of what can happen when this fear of the ‘racist’ term is allowed to permeate society, we only have to look at what is happening in England.

Alexis Jay inquiry

In November 2013 Rotherham Council commissioned Professor Alexis Jay, a former chief social work adviser to the Scottish government, to lead an independent inquiry into its handling of cases involving child exploitation since 1997. Jay’s initial report published on 26 August 2014 revealed that the number of children sexually exploited in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013 was, by “conservative estimate”, at least 1,400. According to the report, children as young as eleven were “raped by multiple perpetrators, abducted, trafficked to other cities in England, beaten and intimidated.” Three previous inquiries – in 2002, 2003 and 2006 – had presented similar findings but, according to the report, had been “effectively suppressed” because officials “did not believe the data”. Dr Angie Heal, a strategic drugs analyst who had prepared the 2003 report, had noted three years after its publication – according to Professor Jay – that “the appeal of organised sexual exploitation for Asian gangs had changed. In the past, it had been for their personal gratification, whereas now it offered ‘career and financial opportunities to young Asian men who got involved’.”

Abuses described by the report included abduction, rape and sex trafficking of children. The inquiry team found examples of “children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone”. The report revealed that “one child who was being prepared to give evidence received a text saying the perpetrator had her younger sister and the choice of what happened next was up to her. She withdrew her statements. At least two other families were terrorised by groups of perpetrators, sitting in cars outside the family home, smashing windows, making abusive and threatening phone calls. On some occasions child victims went back to perpetrators in the belief that this was the only way their parents and other children in the family would be safe. In the most extreme cases, no one in the family believed that the authorities could protect them.” The report highlighted the role of taxi drivers in the town in facilitating the abuse.

Because the majority of perpetrators were Asian or of Pakistani heritage, several council staff described themselves as being nervous about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others, the report noted, “remembered clear direction from their managers” not to make such identification. One Home Office researcher, attempting to raise concerns with senior police officers in 2002 about the level of abuse, was told not to do so again, and was subsequently suspended and sidelined. The researcher told BBC Panorama that:

…she had been accused of being insensitive when she told one official that most of the perpetrators were from Rotherham’s Pakistani community. A female colleague talked to her about the incident. “She said you must never refer to that again – you must never refer to Asian men. And her other response was to book me on a two-day ethnicity and diversity course to raise my awareness of ethnic issues.”

The report noted that the police showed lack of respect for the victims, who were deemed “undesirables”.

It is shocking and dismaying that around 1400 children, some as young as 11 years old, were repeatedly raped, abused and trafficked for sexual purposes for over 15 years before anything was done about it.

The main reason being that the perpetrators were all muslim, mostly of Pakistani heritage, who were preying on white girls. The police and city officials were too worried about being accused of being racists to face this issue head on and protect these innocent children.

You can read about it here, and don’t miss down the bottom where it links to other English towns were the same thing has been happening. The investigations and prosecutions are ongoing. This is not historical. It is current and happening in England right now.

It is barely believable that such evil can be allowed to continue indefinitely – yet the fear of being called a racist has been indoctrinated as something so vile and so shameful that it changes the moral compass of some individuals and groups. Particularly if those people or groups have positions in society or their employment they wish to retain.

We are lucky, in New Zealand, that such sexual exploitation of young girls is relatively rare. But make no mistake, white people are being raped.

We’re being raped of our human rights, our property rights, our heritage and history, our freedoms of speech and expression, and our very way of life. Something our ancestors fought and died for, both here and in two World Wars.

But is it right to say we are being raped, when most of us are not standing up and fighting to keep these things we say are precious to us?

Or will our grandchildren and great grandchildren be able to say it was consensual. That we gave them away because we were too afraid of being called a nasty name to protect these rights for our descendants.

 

Treaty Entrenchment by Stealth

Treaty Entrenchment by Stealth?

(What you don’t know can hurt you)

Background

As part of the Consideration of Constitutional Issues, which was agreed to in the 2008 Relationship Accord and Confidence and Supply Agreement between the National and Maori parties, a Constitutional Advisory Panel was appointed in August 2011. This panel was to ‘continue the conversation’ about how to govern the people, land and resources of New Zealand.

Whilst this panel had other items to discuss, such as the length of our parliamentary terms and the number of MPs in Government, it soon became clear that their main area of focus was to encourage and establish interest in entrenching the Treaty of Waitangi into a written constitution for New Zealand.

Had they succeeded in convincing enough people in New Zealand that this was best for New Zealand and the people who live here, it would have been the ultimate victory in a long and carefully strategized war against New Zealand’s democracy. A war which has been waged for the past 40 years by part-Maori activists and their Treatyist allies.

It must have been a bitter blow that they did not achieve their objective, despite 40 years of re-interpreting the Treaty of Waitangi. During that time, treatyists have been infiltrating education institutions to enable the teaching of their own ideological propaganda to innocent students, plus consistently and tirelessly putting down any discussion that questions their goals and aspirations with cries of ‘Racist!’

Time for Plan B?

Despite an overwhelming lack of support for a ToW entrenched constitution, which should have given a very clear message to the panel members putsching that agenda on just how New Zealanders felt about race based laws and power, the CAP’s report, presented in November 2013, made numerous recommendations to the Government which were designed to advance and enhance part-Maori power in both local and central Government.

13 polls 1 message update image

Credit: Graphic included with kind permission of John Ansell

Whilst the recommendations are numerous, the ones relevant to the point of this tale revolve around part-Maori representation in local Government. (See report link below) It seems that no matter how often the people of New Zealand exercise their democratic rights and vote against having unelected, unaccountable, race-based seats in local Government, activists pushing this agenda refuse to get the message. There seems to be no lengths to which they will not go in order to force their agenda upon the population at large.

We’ve seen the Auckland Super City amalgamation and the Statutory Maori Board forced onto Auckland by the Government and the absolute disaster that has become.

Northland, Hawke’s Bay, Tauranga and Wellington are all considering amalgamation plans put to them by the Local Government Commission. In every case, part of the amalgamation plan is the establishment of an unelected and unaccountable-to-ratepayers part-Maori Board.

Mr Basil Morrison

Basil Morrison seems to be the public face of the force driving many of the strategies to enforce these race-based agendas.

Mr Morrison is currently Chair of the Local Government Commission, Chair of the Local Government New Zealand Superannuation Board of Trustees, a director of Landcorp Farming Ltd and Civic Assurance, and a member of the Waitangi Tribunal. In the past, he has been Chairman of the Ohinemuri County Council, Mayor of Hauraki District Council, a member of the Waikato Regional Council, President of Local Government New Zealand and Chair and Vice Chair of the Commonwealth Local Government Forum from 2005 to 2009. Basil Morrison therefore has considerable knowledge of local government matters at a local, national and international level.

Mr Morrison was also on the New Zealand Geographic Board from July 2010 until July 2013. It was under his watch that the ‘h’ was forced into Wanganui, in spite of the fact that 80% of people polled on the issue did not want it, and the North Island and South Island were given Maori names even though 81% said ‘No’ to that.

Now, in his role as Chairman of the Local Government Commission, which he holds at the same time as being a Waitangi Tribunal member, he is actively pushing the amalgamation of councils agenda, everywhere he can. And, in every case, the amalgamation proposal includes an unelected and unaccountable-to-ratepayers part-Maori Board.

cartoon

Conclusion

Giving more and more power to only one part of any society, separated from the rest by either race, religion or culture, can only be a recipe for disaster. It is undemocratic and unconstitutional. It impinges on the human and democratic rights of every other person.

Having been denied public support for a Treaty of Waitangi based Constitution, this pressure to accept unelected and unaccountable-to-ratepayers part-Maori representation in local Government has all the appearance of a rear guard attack.

As the situation is Auckland has shown, once part-Maori Boards are established, huge amounts of money are demanded from the general rate take, for part-Maori aspirational projects which have little or no benefit to the rate payers in general. The aims being part-Maori focused, and not community focused.

Naturally they will protest that the community in general will benefit, but such Board s and Councillors have not shown exactly how that will happen.

And since these representatives are appointed, not voted for by the rate payers, they are not answerable to rate payers on any decisions they make or what they spend money on. Yet, having votes on Council decisions, they can have a huge influence on the lives of all rate payers.

The full report by the Constitutional Advisory Panel can be viewed here, with the recommendations to Government starting on Page 16.

The Northland By-Election – The Beginning Of The End For A Racist National Party

The Northland By-Election

The Beginning Of The End For A Racist National Party?

eight_col_benedict_one

Prime Minister John Key, second left, and National candidate Mark Osborne in Northland on 26 March 2015. Photo: RNZ / Benedict Collins

The much touted electoral appeal of John Key – or, to be more precise, that contrived perma-smile of John Key – has carried National to three undeserved election victories. But, as was so spectacularly shown in the Northland by-election, the Key train is now falling off the rails.

Despite the nakedly pork barrel politics of offering ten new bridges and Key rushing back from Korea to imprint his own so-called invincible personality on the contest, Winston Peters won this long held, safe National seat by more than 4,000 votes.

At long last, perhaps the voters have seen through the fraud of Key? From here on, it will all be downhill because John Key, like Tony Blair in Britain, is not and never was anything other than a PR/media creation. This man will fly from Dargaville to Invercargill just to oblige the press by wearing a funny hat for a photo opportunity. But when has he ever put in a full day’s work in Wellington on serious matters that affect the country?

When Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, paid a brief (about 24 hours) visit to New Zealand on her way to a recent conference in Brisbane, she was whisked off to some island in the Hauraki Gulf so that she could have her photo taken holding a kiwi with a smiling John Key looking on, as well as other inane photo opportunities. And she doesn’t even like touching animals! This was at the height of the Ukraine crisis and Merkel was the Western leader who had the most contact with Putin.

Besides having one of the world’s strongest and most influential economies, Germany is at the heart of Europe. Any hosting Prime Minister with a work ethic, or any substance or patriotism, would have utilised the small amount of time that this important and useful person had in New Zealand to extract the maximum from the visit. Briefing Cabinet, officials and even the Opposition instead of swanning off to islands for contrived and staged photo ops would have been a so much more productive and wiser thing to do.

Like Tony Blair, John Key is lacking in character, substance or even patriotism (e.g. his expensive attempt to destroy our nation’s flag). When the PR bubble finally bursts, there is nothing else for such types to fall back on with the result that their descent becomes almost vertical. It happened with Blair in Britain – propped up by the media for so long because he was young and smiling but, when that image snapped, there was nothing else to hold him up and today he is one of the most widely reviled men in England.

So, the Key bubble has been popped and even the unflappable Steven Joyce, whose candidate management skills were thought to be infallible, has now been exposed as a tin god. What other campaign manager would have allowed a candidate to appear in such scruffy clothes as Mark Osborne?

With as little as Tony Blair had to prop him up, from now on Key will be battling as the mask of invincibility has so effectively been wiped off his face by Winston Peters. And, with Key’s unpatriotic and ham fisted attempt to change the nation’s flag, he is in for some pretty rough times.

However delighted one might be to see National’s defeat in Northland, one should not expect too much from Peters’ victory. That old and largely empty warhorse spent about five weeks making speeches every day in every town square and kauri grove and yet never once was it reported that he spoke out in support of the principle of One Law For All despite that issue currently being terribly important in Northland.

This is in line with New Zealand First’s retreat on this important policy that it once had, but seems to have dropped. About a year ago New Zealand First distributed a brochure to Tauranga letter boxes entitled “15 Fundamental Principles.” The principle of One Law For All was neither mentioned nor even implied. This shows how vital it is for 1Law4All to succeed, as we can not rely on any of the other parties to drive this all-important issue.

a photo of the Waitangi Tribunal sitting in a meeting house

The Waitangi Tribunal – A Vote of No Confidence

By Reuben Chapple

Reblogged from NZCPR

a photo of the Waitangi Tribunal sitting in a meeting house

It is widely believed that Waitangi Tribunal Reports issue only after rigorous historical investigation of Treaty claims.

These findings then make their way into media reports, onto Government websites, and percolate throughout our education system as apparently authoritative, objective information.

But what if Tribunal Reports were one-eyed rewrites of New Zealand history and not worth the paper they are printed on?

According to the Waitangi Tribunal’s website:

“The Tribunal consists of a chairperson and up to 20 members that may be appointed at any one time. The chairperson may also appoint a Maori Land Court judge to the position of deputy chairperson. The total membership reflects the partnership [sic] of the Treaty of Waitangi through an approximately equal representation of Maori and Pakeha.

“Tribunal members are appointed … by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister of Maori Affairs in consultation with the Minister of Justice.

“Members constitute a pool from which tribunals of between three and seven members are drawn to hear claims. The term ‘Waitangi Tribunal’ is used to refer both to the total membership and to the individual Tribunals. Members are appointed to a Tribunal by direction of the chairperson and remain members until the inquiry is completed or they resign.

“Each Tribunal has to have at least one Maori member, although generally around half the members are Maori. Usually, a Tribunal has a kaumatua member and, where it is inquiring into historical matters, at least one historian [sic].”

From this information we can deduce that:

  1. The Tribunal’s underlying premise before it even hears a single claim is that the Treaty of Waitangi created an ongoing racial partnership.
  1. Tribunal members are appointed on the recommendation of the Minister of Maori Affairs, so we can safely assume that both Maori and non-Maori members will be Treatyists, and likely to come to the table with strong priors rather than being impartial defenders of the public interest.
  1. It is theoretically possible for all Tribunal members hearing a particular claim to be Maori [by which I mean New Zealanders of mixed European-Maori descent who have chosen to identify monoculturally as “Maori”]. More commonly, Maori may be a majority of those hearing a particular claim.
  1. Many Maori have multiple hapu and iwi affiliations, making it quite possible for a Tribunal member hearing a particular claim to have direct links to the claimant group.

Indeed, three years into the hearing of the East Coast claim, presiding Judge Stephanie Milroy was obliged to disqualify herself, but only after lawyers for competing claimant groups pointed out that through her Ngati Porou connections, she had interests in five landblocks that were subject to the claim.

We can only speculate as to how many other instances of this kind never came to light.

This directly contravenes the legal principle that “no man shall be the judge of his own case.”

  1. Given that 50 percent of Tribunal members are Treatyist Maori and the claims process is in a broader sense between the Crown and Maori, this marginally more indirectly contravenes the legal principle that “no man shall be the judge of his own case.”

Let’s now examine how the Tribunal works:

  1. Claims are typically heard on the marae of the claimant tribe, hardly a neutral venue. Deliberations are conducted according to Maori protocol. This is likely to prove highly intimidating to non-Maori interested parties seeking to make a representation.
  1. Since the claims process is seen as being between the Crown and Maori, third parties have no automatic right to be heard. They can only be heard with permission, which the Tribunal rarely grants, particularly if opposed by the claimant group.
  1. Evidence is often given in Maori, with no requirement to provide a translation. As well as being a deliberate act of cultural arrogance, this makes it difficult for non-Maori speakers to have input into the hearing process.
  1. Oral evidence is given the same weight as written evidence and is not subject to cross-examination, since according to Maori protocol this is highly disrespectful to a kaumatua. The Tribunal justifies this by asserting that since it is a Tribunal rather than a Court, rigorous evidential standards need not apply.
  1. Claimants are legally aided to the tune of millions of dollars from taxpayers, with no requirement to pay this back if successful in achieving multi-million dollar settlements. This encourages what economists call rent-seeking behaviour, also known as “trying it on because there’s a huge upside if successful and no price paid for being wrong,” not that I can recall a single Tribunal Report finding against the claimants.
  1. Claimant groups have forced historians they have employed to go away under threat of non-payment and sanitise reports of facts that undermine their case.
  1. Those charged with presenting the Crown’s case are supine to say the least. For example, claimants who didn’t sign the Treaty, such as Tainui, Tuhoe, and Tuwharetoa, should have been immediately shown the door. Groups such as Ngai Tahu, Tainui, and Te Atiawa, who’d already received full and final settlements (some, like Ngai Tahu, several times over) legislated for in Acts of Parliament the preambles of which include the words “full and final settlement” should also have been told to talk to the hand.

The Tribunal’s recent assertion that contrary to primary source accounts of what the chiefs said on the lawn at Waitangi, Ngapuhi never ceded sovereignty to the Crown, is the latest in a long line of egregious tommyrot to exit this body via the fundament.

Who can forget the Tribunal’s “Holocaust of Taranaki” press release likening the closing down of the Parihaka Commune (in which not a single person lost their life) with the state-sponsored Nazi slaughter of millions of Jews during WWII?

Legendary media critic Brian Priestley MBE, who acted as media adviser for Ngai Tahu when that the tribe’s claim was before the Waitangi Tribunal, had this to say about the Tribunal process:

“Years ago I attended several sessions while advising the Ngai Tahu on public relations for their claims.

“It would be hard to imagine any public body less well-organised to get at the truth.

“There was no cross-examination.

“Witnesses were treating with sympathetic deference.

“The people putting the Crown’s side of things seemed equally anxious not to offend.

“In three months I don’t think I was asked a single intelligent, awkward question.

“I should have been.”

A number of reputable historians, including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave and Bill Oliver have voiced concerns that the Waitangi Tribunal has become a self-referencing echo chamber for re-writing New Zealand history.

In “The Waitangi Tribunal and New Zealand History,” published in 2004, Victoria University historian Dr Giselle Byrnes lays damning charges against the Tribunal, describing its attempts to write history as a “noble, but ultimately flawed experiment.”

According to Dr Byrnes, the Tribunal is not writing “objective history.” Rather, the reports it produces are deeply political and overwhelmingly focused on the present, in that the Tribunal invariably judges the past by today’s standards rather than those prevailing at the time under scrutiny.

Tribunal history also has a strong Maori bias, Dr Byrnes says. Maori characters and stories are given much more emphasis and weight than Pakeha characters and stories. “The reports increasingly champion or advocate the Maori cause.”

Other academics share this unease, but reluctant to say anything publicly, Dr Byrnes points out.

“I know that many historians have felt some kind of disquiet about the sort of history the Tribunal has been producing over the past few years. They haven’t spoken out about it because most historians have liberal political leanings and they don’t want to be seen as undermining or criticising the whole process.”

Dr Byrnes also reveals significant concerns about the mass consumption of Tribunal reports by the media and general public. She believes the Tribunal should clearly state its pro-claimant bias, lest lay people reading Tribunal reports be misled.

Ngapuhi kaumatua, David Rankin, a direct descendant of Hone Heke, more recently had this to say about the Tribunal as a nursery for the re-writing of New Zealand history:

“The Tribunal makes up history as it goes along.  A growing number of New Zealand historians are pointing this out, although most of them are labelled as racist for doing so.  Facts are omitted in Tribunal reports, and evidence is shaped in some cases to fit predetermined outcomes.   The bias is so obvious, but most historians are too scared for their careers to question the tribunal’s findings.

“[T]he Tribunal … has turned out to be a body that is bringing in apartheid to New Zealand.  This sounds dramatic, until you see how it advocates for race-based access to certain areas, and race-based management policies for Crown land, and now, twin sovereignty, which constitutionally is worse than anything that happened in South Africa during the apartheid era.

“The Tribunal is a bully.  Go against it, and you will be labelled a racist or worse.”

Clearly, any thinking New Zealander should have absolutely no confidence in anything that comes out of this body.

The Tail Wagging the Dog

Reblogged from NZCPR
Tony Sayers

By

Sub title: An article from one of the little people

For many years as a practising teacher in New Zealand, I watched the gradual but tangible creep of Maori influence upon the NZ education system. ‘And what is wrong with that?’ the Maori educationists and culturally liberated activists, may cry.

‘Nothing at all’, I would reply, ‘so long as the same opportunity is offered to every other ethnic group in the country’. We know that becomes cumbersome and impractical.

Before I get branded as a redneck, (a favourite Maori term for anyone who does not subscribe to their way of thinking), or as anti-Maori; let me openly state that my political position is in favour of equality for all citizens of New Zealand, (sorry, ‘Aotearoa-New Zealand), regardless of their ethnicity. That said, let me get to the nub of the issue.

I am always in favour of implementing innovations that bring about improvement, but I honestly cannot say that the changes in education, pushed by Maori protagonists, have had a beneficial affect across the board, there have been more negatives than positives come out of it.

I have seen the newspaper articles about the ‘dumbing down’ of subject and exam content, and lowering of assessment levels so that Maori are not disadvantaged by the ‘Pakeha” system. I have heard Pita Sharples call for entry levels to University to be lowered exclusively for Maori students. He has suggested that students sitting NCEA exams in the Maori language, receive a percentage increment for their marks. Surely these are admissions of lower levels of attainment by Maori.

I recall the frustration of some of my Maori-teacher colleagues, regarding the attitudes of their Maori students. These teachers considered that the students did not make an effort, because they expected to get special considerations in the system, simply because they were Maori’. There have been enough manifestations of such practices to nurture such views.

I recall when I was teaching at Manutuke School, a representative from Maori Affairs came to the school to inform the Maori students about all the assistance that they could anticipate from the government. I was present, since my students were part of his target group. My thoughts at the time were, that I should marry a Maori woman, so that my children would be eligible for the same hand-outs. All of these inequalities hinged upon who your parents are. Individuals have no choice over who their parents are. Birth is a lottery and that is what makes it so unfair. Two babies born on the same day, in the same town, in the same country, have different rights and privileges simply because of their race. Something needs to change.

I clearly recall the principal of the school, at which I worked, (circa 2010), reporting to the staff about the conference he had attended. He told us that the keynote speaker at the conference, a Maori academic, ‘who had the ear of the Ministry’, advocated that, ‘In the first instance, the curriculum should be written specifically to address the needs of Maori students’.  He also stated that, ‘Non-Maori students would not be disadvantaged because they had traditionally achieved anyway’.

Hullo! Is this a race-based curriculum?

Is this apartheid in the NZ education system?

No we are not supposed to call it apartheid in NZ.

Oh I am sorry! We are not supposed to challenge any Maori initiatives if you work for the Ministry of Education.

It is not written down anywhere, but just watch the ‘inner circle of enlightened teachers’ around you scatter if you dare criticize the current bandwagon.    Uh-oh!   No-one wants to sit at your table for morning tea.

They do not want the principal to think that they sympathise with your views. Not a good career move.

Initially the changes were just to revive the Maori language and culture. No harm there, and it had the goodwill of us all. That went well, so other changes followed. At first they were minor, a process of de-sensitisation, and then changes grew bolder by increments.

Pita Sharples utterances became even more ridiculous.

Other manifestations of creeping Maori influence in education that I have witnessed first hand are:

  1. At Wairoa College, after being appointed to the job by the Board of trustees and commencing teaching duties, I was required to be observed teaching the subject of metalwork, by the Ministry Inspector for Maori Studies, (a rose by another name, for those who know to whom I refer). Was this to assess my suitability to teach Maori students?  If she was a skilled engineer then it was not apparent.

  2. Another lady inspector from the Ministry cruised into the workshop. She demanded to know ‘to what degree I had incorporated aspects of ‘Taha Maori’ into the metalwork programme’. I replied, “To the same degree as the Maori Studies Department has done with ‘Taha Metalwork’. I am still awaiting a supply of ships nails.” She was not amused and left the workshop.

  3. An edict was passed down from the Ministry that signage in classrooms had to be displayed in both Maori and English languages. The principal informed teachers that: frequently used terms and glossaries should also be available with their Maori equivalents. Keen to comply, I sought to find Maori equivalents for: micrometer, calliper, oxy-acetylene, and so on, to no avail. I sent a memo to the HOD of the Maori Studies Department, asking for assistance. He told me to disregard it, since it was all BS. I had to agree, but wouldn’t it be nice if we could nail down the faceless individuals who put this stuff in motion.

  4. The Maori Art & Crafts teacher plus other Maori teachers and students, held a ceremony to plant some ‘Pouwhenua’ in the school grounds. (No they’re not flowers.) These were duly blessed by a Ratana priest. Now they are tapu and cannot be interfered with. A lovely aesthetic touch don’t you think, but do Pakehas understand the political connotations, I think not. (Pouwhenua are carved poles, traditionally placed to stake out territory, or mark tapu locations. Take your pick.) Where was this headed I asked myself. Funny! I thought, this was a state school that belonged to everyone in the community. I do not recall any consultations with the wider community, it just happened, under the radar.

  5. I, along with other new staff at the school, had to compulsorily attend a three day ‘Marae Course’. What the objective was, or if there was any benefit to the teachers concerned, I am not sure, but the Marae collected some nice kohas. Why it took three days, remains a mystery. Was it to assess our suitability to teach Maori students, AFTER we had been appointed by the Board of Trustees, or was it some statement, or subtle form of intimidation? You’re on our turf. At other schools, new teachers to the school generally receive a compulsory welcome onto the school marae. One hour. Charming. I can get to recite my whakapapa.

  6. When I taught at Opotiki College, if any Maori student disrupted lessons, they were scheduled to be interviewed by the School Marae Committee, when it next convened. Non-Maori students were dealt with the same day and generally did detention. The difference in the results of the two protocols was markedly noticeable. There were no apologies or improvements in conduct from those students dealt with by the Marae Committee. Hang on!  Isn’t this a race-based protocol? Isn’t that called ‘apartheid’? Oh no, silly me.

  7. The Jim Moriarty Maori Drama Academy turned up at Opotiki College to give a performance. I do not recall the title of the performance, but what I do recall is the ‘race hate’ message of the play. It portrayed nasty pakehas and honourable Maoris. The acting was from the heart. I regarded the play content as offensive propaganda. I was astounded that the school administrators would allow such content into the school. The school administration routinely bent over backwards to appease the local iwi, (whose members had previously pulled down the NZ flag at the Council Building, hoisted the Kotahitanga flag and occupied the Council Chambers). Yes the school’s upper management resembled a croquet pitch. But never mind, the performance was an example that Maori were good actors and other young Maori would be similarly inspired. What was really remarkable was that non-Maori students had to compulsorily attend the performance, and pay an entry fee for the opportunity to be offended.

  8. Whilst teaching at Wairoa College and again at Opotiki College, part-way through my mathematics classes there was a regular exodus of Maori students headed to ‘Kapa Haka’ practice. The consequence was, that these students missed out on so much learning in the subject, that they were not able to reach the required achievement levels in numeracy. Let’s blame it on the Pakeha system that does not address Maori students’ needs.

  9. At the most recent school I taught in, the morning staff meetings had to begin with a ‘waiata’. We are doing this the Maori way, so get used to it.

A lot of this stuff is laughable BUT it is all evidence of a Maori agenda to manipulate the education system to their own ends.

They need to condition the teaching work-force to accept and implement their strategies without question or opposition.

In my examples above, note the number of times these Maori initiatives were compulsory.

‘Cultural Safety’ and political indoctrination are well entrenched into teacher training, as well as in nursing training. If you want to graduate then you must toe the political line. They call it cultural, but they are fooling no-one. A bit of web-surfing will produce the evidence. (The article I refer to, is in ‘Investigate’ Magazine Oct/Nov 2014, titled ‘Training Parrots’). I salute the author of that article for the conviction and courage to publicly voice their concern. I now add my voice to this cry and invite other teachers and nurses to raise the volume so that we are heard.

If you think that a Maori oriented education system will benefit the general populace of New Zealand, think again. The result would bring down the educational achievement levels of all ethnicities.

Not even Maori can deny that their education achievements need to rise, so that they can compete in the open job market. Non-Maori set the benchmark. It is for Maori to meet that challenge and not try to manipulate the system to achieve parity by de facto means. If the performance of our current Maori Minister of Education is a taste of what is to come, then God Defend New Zealand. I also question whether their ultimate objective relates not to achievement, language and culture, but to political ends.

Looking to the future, consider the following scenario:

A Maori initiative for the introduction of ‘A New History Of Aotearoa”. It would probably be edited by someone such as Sir Hugh Kawharu or Dr. Danny Keenan. This would be the exciting new history from a Maori perspective. It would have the objective of conditioning the up-coming generations to believe a fabricated history, according to the (discredited) Waitangi Tribunal. (The researchers for the book, might also have difficulty getting paid for their work, until they had portrayed the Maori as the aggrieved party). Written records of who said what would also be ‘reinterpreted’ regardless of eyewitness records to the contrary.

How much easier it would be in twenty years time, for Maori claims to gain a toehold, if the old history was replaced by the new history. To achieve this, Maori need to be able to pump this into the Education system without any opposition, and they are virtually there. The work force have been conditioned not to prod the sacred cow. The taxpayers will continue to fund Maori interests for eons, whilst the hospital waiting lists grow longer, because the Health system is deprived of the necessary funds.

Teachers who are currently employed in the system, and have woken up, are reluctant to make a stand under the present political and social climate. The teachers who are retired, are in a position to speak up without damage to their careers. They need to come forward and inform the general public of what has been, and still is, going on. So let’s have a few more retired teachers voice their anecdotes and opinions. If you say nothing, then this manifestation just festers away with dire consequences for the future. This topic needs to gain volume, so that politicians realise that it is an issue that must be addressed in their manifestos, for the next election.

By voicing my opinions on this controversial subject, I anticipate a tirade from enlightened, emancipated young teachers, freshly indoctrinated at university, with new world, politically correct and culturally safe views. Yes, I know, if you can’t take the heat then stay out of the kitchen. I am prepared to take the heat, but remember, I was once like you. The difference between you and me, is years of experience in education, that might well equate with the learning required to become a professor.

I was not born with opinions, they developed from my real experiences.

The examples that have formed my opinions, are far too common to be ignored.

If people are too scared to put their head above the parapet, then that is what Maori want.

It would be a relief to be proven wrong.


Click on the linked title below to refresh your minds about the NZ Colleges of Indoctrination, by re-reading an earlier blog post on what’s essentially the same matter. Prepare to be outraged, even more than you are, after reading the item above.

PREPARING THE PARROTS: A TRAINING COLLEGE GRADUATE ON THE CULTURAL CORRUPTION OF TEACHERS

 

1 2 3 5
%d bloggers like this: