Muriel Newman

Democracy Under Attack

DEMOCRACY UNDER ATTACK

By Dr Muriel Newman

NZCPR Weekly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Whinlayson

The Idiot[cy] Goes On

The Idiot[cy] Goes On

16 Mar 2017

Once the Te Awa Tupua (Wanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill becomes law, the Wanganui River is to gain its own legal identity with all the corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a legal person. But what does this actually mean? Will it have all the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else?

WHAT IS A LEGAL PERSON?

A legal person has all the rights, duties and liabilities of a person but is not a natural person – a human being. When it comes to understanding the river’s new rights and responsibilities, it’s easiest to think of it like you’d think of a company.

DOES IT HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS?

In New Zealand, legal persons, like companies, have guaranteed rights just like actual people (natural people). The same way that a natural person has a right to freedom of expression, so does a company that owns a newspaper. This principle will now apply to the river. Not all of the rights will apply but any right that it makes sense for a legal person to have, the river will have as well. This will include things like the right to natural justice.

WILL IT PAY TAXES?

Basically the same tax rules apply to it as apply to other legal persons. It probably depends on what it does, but if it starts supplying goods or services, it will have the same GST responsibilities as a company would.

WHO PAYS FOR IT?

The settlement’s total cost to the NZ taxpayer is $81 million. $30m for the establishment of Te Korotete (a fund to support the health and wellbeing of the river); $200,000 per year for 20 years for Te Pou Tupua (the “face” of the river, or the two natural persons appointed to act for the river); $430,000 for the establishment of Te Heke Ngahuru (a strategy established to ensure the future environmental, social, cultural and economic health and well being of Te Awa Tupua).

Sources: Stuff, Lawyer Graeme Edgeler and New Zealand Government settlement summary.

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.

 

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

 

Another Wearying and Woeful Waitangi Day

Another Wearying & Woeful Waitangi Day

 

kiwis_today

There seems to be no end to the brain- or brown-washing of NZ. It just keeps coming, like a seismic wave of thoroughly well informed self-interest, ignorance and sophistry. Read the PM’s speech excerpt below.

Ground control to PM Key: the Treaty of Waitangi contains:

NO mention of any “principles”

NO mention of a “partnership”

NO mention of “forests”

NO mention of “fisheries”

cartoon

Wake up and smell the parchment, Key, Finlayson, et al. The Treaty of Waitangi is no more a living document than any other Treaty. Just read the damned two-paragraph preamble, so expeditiously overlooked most everywhere, including Te Papa, our national storehouse of treaty fabrications.

Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in Her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve to them their land and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovereignty of their country and of the islands adjacent to the Queen. Seeing that many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving; And that it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them.

Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.

Reality Check Essential

Once signed, a contract or treaty binds the signatories. End of story. Litigation on interpretation is possible. Renunciation is possible. But changing the words is not. Nor is arguing that a word scribed in a contract or treaty hundreds of years ago should be interpreted in today’s meaning. Lexical drift is a well known phenomena. It would be fatuous to pretend today that Fred Flinstone’s fifty-plus-year-old cartoon strip jingle “gay old time” meant a consorting group of homosexuals.

Critical Thinking Needed

The Treaty of Waitangi has – in and of itself – no validity in law, whether NZ law or international law. It can be part of New Zealand law ONLY by virtue of some Act of Parliament that says that any part of the Treaty applies.

The Prime Minister has pushed his agenda in his Waitangi speech at the upper marae on the Treaty grounds.

Mr Key said while the Treaty is a formal agreement, it must be interpreted over time and adapted accordingly.

He acknowledged the challenges Maori faced in the century after the Treaty was signed, as the Crown ignored many of its agreements.

“The spirit of generosity with which Maori entered into this partnership was forgotten or ignored by many over the following decades,” he said. “But the Treaty partnership we commemorate today acknowledges the bonds that have underpinned the creation of a special country.”

“The Treaty settlement process may not be to everyone’s satisfactions, but I’m a firm believer in the current process, which is addressing the wrongs done in the past to help Maori build their futures.”

“I am confident the next 25 years will deliver more promises, passion and achievements as we work together to tackle the challenges that will be thrown at us.”

What a load of codswallop!

Wake up New Zealand and smell the dozers:

cartoon

 

The Waitangi Tribunal’s BIG LIE

The Waitangi Tribunal’s BIG LIE

The powers of the Waitangi Tribunal were massively, unnecessarily and unpatriotically extended by the Lange/Palmer government for no other reason than to try to buy the votes of Maoris at the following election. The ensuing monster that became the toy of a series of radical Maori members of the Tribunal  – types like Ranginui Walker, “Judge”  Joe Williams and Tamati Reedy – and their liberal white lackeys is now a threat not only to our economy (the higher taxes we all have to pay to fund the never-ending and ever more expensive “Treaty settlements”) but also to our rights to formerly public areas and now even to our very sovereignty as a nation.

In November, this racist, unelected, and deeply compromised, if not corrupt, Tribunal issued Stage One of its enquiry into Ngapuhi’s (Northland tribe) Treaty claim, declaring that the chiefs did NOT cede sovereignty to the Crown when they signed the Treaty in February, 1840. This is a lie. A very deliberate lie and a self-interested lie from a Tribunal that seems to see its sole function as an advocacy group for part-Maori and to extract as much as possible off the ordinary New Zealander in terms of tax dollars, public resources (e.g. the loss of the Urewera National Park to Tuhoe) and, by its new ruling, even sovereignty itself.

The Treaty of Waitangi was a very simple document and the chiefs of Northland who signed it understood its terms very well. By Article One they “cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovereignty of the country”. These simple words were translated into Maori by Henry Williams, a Maori speaker, if not scholar, whom the Maoris trusted. (But the settlers didn’t!)

It is clear by the objections of some of the chiefs (quoted below) that they understood what they were signing – that they would henceforth be subject to a new and greater sovereignty and, as such, would no longer be allowed to act as independent chiefs, with their power depending on their own might and muskets. “What do we want of a Governor? We are not whites nor foreigners. We are the governor – we, the chiefs of this land of our ancestors.  Do not sign this paper. If you do, you will be reduced to the condition of slaves and be compelled to break stones on the roads. Your land will be taken from you and your dignity as chiefs will be destroyed,” said the Northland chief, Rewa at the time of signing. This hostility, which did not deter other chiefs from signing, shows that the cession of sovereignty was clearly understood and the speech is quoted here (as are those that follow) solely for the purpose of showing that the chiefs knew that they were signing away whatever sovereignty they possessed for a higher purpose, viz. the ending of the terrible inter-tribal fighting.

Another chief, Kemara of the Ngatikawa, said, ” If thou stayest as Governor, then perhaps Te Kemara will be judged and condemned. Yes, indeed, and more than that – even hang by the neck….Were we to be an equality, then perhaps Te Kemara will say yes.”  This chief also knew what the cession of sovereignty meant while his words clearly show that there was no “partnership” between the Crown and Maori as Key, Finlayson, The Tribunal and the Labour Party so erroneously claim, each for their own spurious and self-interested purposes. .

Yet another chief, Tareha, said, “No Governor for me – for us Native men. We, we only are the chiefs, the rulers. We will not be ruled over.. What, thou, a foreigner, up and I down! Thee high, and I Tareha, the great chief of the Ngatirehia tribes, low! No, no; never, never. ”

For the Tribunal and a few biased historians like Michael King and Claudia Orange to say a century and a half later that the poor, dumb chiefs didn’t know what they were doing is false, paternalist and racist.

Even though their culture was less advanced than that of the British, the chiefs were intelligent men in their own way and knew that, because of their endless bloody wars and tribal feuds, they could never choose a desperately needed superior sovereign among themselves and so they put themselves under British rule – a definite improvement to the rule of the musket which had hitherto prevailed.

In choosing the British, the chiefs showed their wisdom, if not their cunning, as in 1840 the British led the world in inventions, engineering, liberty, political stability and humane values, the United States at that time being nothing more than a hurriedly put together federation that was based on slavery while, from 1787 to the late nineteenth century, France teetered between dictatorship and rather bloody forms of republicanism.

“To turn around and now argue that Maori  signing the Treaty of Waitangi did not understand they were surrendering their sovereignty to an entity of even higher mana defies belief and history,” wrote Ian Wishart in his excellent book, The Great Divide. (Page 165)

The cession of sovereignty, which the Treaty enabled, is the very foundation of our rights and of our very existence as a modern, democratic nation (as opposed to the undemocratic, racist and feudal option that would ensue if the Waitangi Tribunal’s recommendation should be accepted by this feckless government). Article One of the Treaty (the cession of sovereignty) has been accepted by historians, politicians, judges and even Maori themselves for at least seven generations  and this nonsensical and false declaration by the Tribunal to the contrary should be seen for the crude, self-interested and nation-destroying fraud that it is.

Even more alarming is the refusal of the appeasing and unpatriotic National government to nip it in the bud by a declaration exposing this lie and upholding the sovereignty of our 175 year old nation.

Thousands of soldiers have died on the battlefield – in the Maori Wars and the two world wars – to uphold the sovereignty of New Zealand and, by failing to condemn this attack on our nation with the urgency and thoroughness that it deserves, John Key has shown yet again that he is seriously lacking in both patriotism and an understanding of our constitutional arrangements.

By attacking our sovereignty, our legal system and our long held rights in this deceitful manner, the Waitangi Tribunal and its ragtag bunch of members have shown that they are the enemy of every New Zealander except, of course, the tribal elite, of which so many of the Tribunal’s members are fully paid up subscribers.

At least the Germans in the two world wars and terrorists like Te Kooti were identifiable enemies whereas the members of this Tribunal are not only tolerated by our dim witted media but they are also showered with honours and high positions by governments both National and Labour. “National” and “Labour”, being two sides of the same racist coin, of course.

If the sovereignty of any other country was attacked by such a monstrous lie, there would be instant outrage. But in our heavily sedated, TV dominated society there was barely a murmur at this affront to our rights and our future.

That is the real problem and the members of the Tribunal who make these attacks on the rest of us know that, with mass-controlled thinking, an education system that is increasingly concerned with telling people what to think rather than how to think, and a government that is in permanent thrall to the tribal elite, it is not difficult for the Tribunal to disseminate its insidious lies and get away with it.

According to the Tribunal’s report, the chiefs believed that they were only giving Britain the right to govern its own settlers and to keep the peace but that Maori would continue to govern themselves. So, why didn’t they continue with their cannibalism, which meant so much to certain chiefs? And, if the Crown has not had the right to govern Maori, why are Maoris taking so much money from the Crown (taxpayer) in the form of pensions and benefits?

It is true that Treaty Minister, Christopher Whinlayson, reacted by saying that there was no question that the Crown had sovereignty in New Zealand and that the report doesn’t change that fact, but why was this potentially nation-smashing lie not knocked down immediately and permanently? Why allow the government to have time “to consider the report”?

And Whinlayson is not the best person to uphold the sovereignty of the nation as he is the biased and deeply compromised minister who undermined New Zealand’s sovereignty by forcing the nation into a “co-governance” agreement with the selfish and backward Tuhoe tribe in the Ureweras. Anything that Whinlayson says should be regarded with the utmost cynicism and one has to wonder if the reason why he said that the Crown does have sovereignty is that, to say otherwise, would be a denial of his own position as Treaty Minister and Attorney-General and so he would no longer be in a position to grant favours to his ex-client, Nga Tahu, and his other favoured tribes.

Among the more inane comments on this important  issue was that by Haami Piripi, described as a “Te Rarawa leader”, who said, “In 1840 Europeans had 5% of New Zealand’s land mass. What logic would lead you to believe Maori would cede the other 95%?” Apart from the inaccuracy of those figures (Maori own quite a lot more than 5% – more, in fact, in proportion to their numbers than other New Zealanders), the answer is that in 1840 and for a few decades thereafter New Zealand was short of a lot of things but land was not one of them. For example, there were only about 2,000 Maoris in the whole of the South Island and so it is not surprising that they sold so much of it to the government for valuable consideration so as to get the money that they needed to develop the  lands that they kept.

And, in a further dent to Mr. Piripi’s logic, the sad truth is that too many Maoris sold land for money and then drank the proceeds. By all its dodgy Treaty settlements the Waitangi Tribunal is now giving them a second bite of the cherry and in many cases they are no wiser, e.g. the purchase of expensive hospitality boxes at Hamilton’s rugby league ground out of Tainui’s Treaty settlement money so that the fat cats of that tribe can wallow in luxury while watching their favoured sport.

The current members of the Tribunal – the body that told this monstrous lie – are:
Chairperson: Wilson Isaac
Deputy Chairperson: Patrick Savage
Members: Robyn Anderson, John Baird, Angela Ballara, Tim Castle, Ronald Crosby, Miriama Evans, Aroha Harris, Richard Hill, Rawina Higgins, Sir Douglas Kidd, Hirini Moko Mead, Joanne Morris, Basil Morrison, Kihi Ngatai, Ann Parsonson, Grant Phillipson, Tamati Reedy, Tania Simpson, Monty Soutar, Paul Swain, Pou Temara, Carrie Wainwright, Keita Walker and Ranginui Walker.

Ranginui Walker, described in Twisting the Treaty as an “angry extremist” (Page 60), was formerly a member of the radical Maori activist group, Nga Tamatoa (The Young Warriors) who took inspiration from Marxist and indigenous rights groups around the world, including the gun carrying Maoist Black Panther gang.

Sir Douglas Kidd is a former National M.P. and no doubt likes the huge salary that he gets for his Tribunal membership. Tim Castle is a Wellington lawyer of European descent who is doing very nicely out of the lucrative Treaty industry. One has to wonder how he can justify being on such a mischievous and deceitful body with his membership of the law profession.

New Zealand is sliding down a slippery slope towards racism and apartheid and this lie of the Waitangi Tribunal is such a serious step on that downward path that it is incumbent on every New Zealander who cares for the future of this country to understand what it means and then tell as many people as possible of the dangers that we are facing.

Neither National nor Labour can be trusted on this issue and we have just under three years to spread the word of what is really happening to as many of our friends, relations, work colleagues, neighbours, team mates, etc, that we can. This is a war – a war for our rights, our sovereignty, our flag, our democracy – indeed for the very soul of our country. Truth must prevail over the lies of the media, of the government and of the Waitangi Tribunal. Our hard won democracy must prevail over the racism and feudalism to which the Tribunal is trying to revert us. A useful first step would be the abolition of this Tribunal which is steadily wrecking all that our ancestors and us have built in this country.

We must nail this lie as, with none of the mainstream media exposing it, it is starting to get legs. Green M.P., Catherine Delahunty, on the last day of parliament in 2014, screamed in the parliamentary chamber at the Prime Minister: “Why will not John Key accept what every high school student knows – that the chiefs did not cede sovereignty at Waitangi in 1840?” That shows how far the indoctrination of the young has gone.

For further reading on Article One of the Treaty see The Great Divide, by Ian Wishart (pages 164-194), and When Two Cultures Meet, Dr. John Robinson, Pages 101-7

Pahia Plaque

Pahia Plaque

Decoding The Lies, Spin & BS

Guest post from Seymour Percy

Now, folks, this might seem like an odd request, but please bear with me.

Have a look at this video. It’s just under 7 minutes long. Especially, look at the faces of the audience towards the end. They did not like what they heard, did they?

The correspondence to the present takeover of NZ by the part-Maori apartheid proponents is glaringly obvious. But kiwis are not hearing about it, are they? Or, when they do, they’re either too busy to do anything about it, or too thick to see through the veil of deception and appreciate what’s going on! Have their BS antennae fallen off?

It’s all a matter of ‘how you package it,’ PLUS how perceptive the the NZ constituency audience is!

After you’ve watched the video and while it’s still fresh in your mind, look down at the media release that’s appended, just below.

Look very, very carefully at the parts marked in red. Look at how the deceptive trickery is carefully spun out by the clever use of ‘trigger’ words. Then move on down to one possible analysis, at the end.


Press Release – New Zealand Recreation Association

Maori and Aboriginal leaders will be among the speakers at an international Hui exploring the best models for protecting natural environments in Australia and New Zealand.

JOINT MEDIA RELEASE

FRIDAY, JUNE 6, 2014

High-level Hui explores models for shared protection of natural environments.

Maori and Aboriginal leaders will be among the speakers at an international Hui exploring the best models for protecting natural environments in Australia and New Zealand.

The Co-governance and Co-management of Parks and Environments Hui will take place at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa in Wellington on June 17 and 18. It will provide an opportunity for Indigenous groups and representatives, parks agencies, land managers, recreation consultants, business leaders and policy makers to discuss co-governance and co-management of land and marine environments.

The event has been jointly organised by Parks Forum and the New Zealand Recreation Association (NZRA). It will be opened by Conservation Minister Hon Dr Nick Smith, with keynote presentations from paramount chief Sir Tumu te Heuheu T kino of Ng ti T wharetoa and Sir Mark Solomon of Ng i Tahu.

Keynote addresses will be complemented by workshops hosted by New Zealand and Australian parks organisations and Indigenous leaders, including Dr Matthew Ward, Regional Manager for Natural Resources Alinytjara Wiluara, a branch of the South Australia Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, and former M ori All Blacks coach Matt Te Pou, of Tuhoe.

NZRA Chief Executive Andrew Leslie says recent Treaty of Waitangi land settlements in New Zealand and the granting of access and land-use rights to Indigenous groups in Australia has highlighted the need for Indigenous leaders and people at all levels of parks management to share knowledge and experiences of how best to co-govern and co-manage land.

“The time is right too, for an international Hui to pool knowledge, share experiences, and talk through common challenges and models that are working well,” he says.

Parks Forum’s Chief Executive Margaret Morton says “Though the Australian experience is different from New Zealand, which has the Treaty as a guiding document, we’re interested in sharing our knowledge of taking a joint approach to protecting our natural environment.”

Australia’s 1993 Native Title Act recognises the rights of some Indigenous people to their land that come from their traditional laws and customs, including rights to live on the area, access and use the land historically occupied by Indigenous peoples.

Speakers and workshops will examine a range of outcomes including the experience of the Crown and Waikato-Tainui’s co-management of conservation resources five years on, Ngati Whatua Orakei Reserves Board’s co-governance experience 23 years on, and the current arrangements for Auckland’s new agency for co-governing and co-managing the city’s Maunga or volcanic cones.

The work undertaken to establish Wellington’s Oruaiti Reserve, formerly Point Dorset Reserve, will be the topic for another workshop. It looks at what Treaty settlement has meant for Taranaki Wh nui and council partnerships in Wellington. Oruaiti Reserve is the first of several joint management arrangements for reserves in Wellington.

The Australian perspective on joint management of parks and protected areas will be presented by traditional owners and park managers from the Northern Territory, Parks Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. The workshops and masterclasses will explore what models have worked well and identify how we can all work together more effectively to manage our natural and cultural values.

The Hui will be preceded by an optional field trip to Wellington conservation programme’s Matiu (Somes) Island and Zealandia, on Monday June 16.


Now, here’s a few clues to wise you up to what’s going on.

1) Joint Media Release – “New Zealand Recreation Association.” Wow! They sound important, don’t they? They sound like a group that would take in hobby recreationists, like trampers, hunters, fishers, mountain climbers, river kayakers, national parks visitors, etc., don’t they? Don’t be fooled – they don’t! In reality they’re an “organisation for recreation professionals.” People who get to charge for what they do! Look at their web site. They’re a trade association! Using racially-biased agreements that make private citizen open space access into a pay-for privilege will make the recreation professionals so much more competitive, wont it? And the media release is “joint,” too. And – guess what? The other part of the joint is the Parks Forum – the NZ Recreation Assn Oz equivalent. From their web site: “Our vision is for a strong and vibrant parks industry.” Industry? I.e. both organisations are commercial rent-a-guides!

2) The hooey is “international.” Wow! That’s sounds important, right? An appeal to authority logical fallacy.

3) “best models for protecting natural environments” Sounds good, too, right? Who could disagree with that? (The unspecified best model will doubtless be iwi elite control with convenient commercial connections to the Oz Parks Forum and the NZ Recreation Assn!)

4) “High-level Hui explores models for shared protection of natural environments” The word ‘shared’ now appears, associated with ‘protection of natural environments,’ but only after a further appeal to authority logical fallacy of ‘High-level Hui.’ There will be nothing morally, ethically or democratically ‘high’ about the hooey’s hidden agenda!

5) Note that it’s a hooey, rather than a symposium, or conference or the like. Another subliminal, crafty insertion to soften readers / viewers / the media / suckers to the view that such high-powered things need to be hooeys because they’re so important.

6) “protecting natural environments in Australia and New Zealand” – Another logical fallacy. Viz. argumentum ad populum (appeal to the authority of the many). Wow! As well as being an international hooey, Australia’s singled out for special mention, so that must make it a good thing to do, right!

7) “The co-governance and co-management of Parks and Environments Hui.” Aha – now the reality of what the hooey is about becomes apparent, if the reader has not been blinded by the soothing and deceptively spun platitudes which preceded it. Later, the word ‘environments’ morphs into ‘natural environments.’

8) Then, just in case those co-words struck a nerve, a sedative / palliative is applied in this form: “The time is right too for an international Hui to pool knowledge, share experiences, and talk through common challenges and models that are working well.” What harm can there be in pooling knowledge, sharing experiences, talking through models that are working well and any challenges, right? Especially given the earlier repeated mantra of “protecting natural environments.”

9) In case you missed it, note the use of the words “natural environments.” Parks is fairly well defined. But natural environments takes in just about everything except a concrete jungle! Given what’s happened in Auckland, your backyard is in the ‘natural environment!’

10) Then, towards the end, slipped in, ever-so-sneakily, is “natural and cultural values.” What have cultural values got to do with protecting natural environments? Nothing at all. Another snake in the grass lying in wait for the casual outdoorsy types. And never forget, this born-again conservator-general BS is nothing but one of contemporary convenience. Who do they think they’re kidding? If such enviro-conservation ‘cultural values’ were of long standing, NZ would still have moas and huias, etc.

Whoever’s behind this knows what they’re about. And the person who wrote that media release really knew what they were doing. It’s very, very, very clever.

The brown-washed, brain-dead, PC media would fall for it, hook, line and sinker.

As would most of the rest of the NZ population.

That is what 1Law4All is up against.

Are they up to it? Are their members prolific enough and up to it?

If not, I don’t fancy their chances. Or New Zealand’s.

 

Comments are now closed

TYRANNY’S SOFT STEPPING STONE

By Fiona Mackenzie

Can we change the course of history? Many say we can’t; we should just accept what’s happening and go with the flow. Others feel they simply must do something, make an effort so our descendants won’t pay the price of our apathy. Hence the formation of 1Law4All and our grassroots attempts to inform fellow New Zealanders of just what the trends will mean.

Professor James Allan is another who has spoken out in his book, “Democracy in Decline”. A Canadian who has also lived Down Under, he writes about the forces currently undermining the democracies of the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

True democracy, where every adult has one equal vote and the most votes wins, is not a perfect system. We don’t always get what we want but hey, we do win occasionally. And majorities are usually reasonably fair to all. Proof of democracy’s value lies in the indisputable fact that the 5 countries described have been among the most stable, prosperous and evolving nations on earth. So many emigrants or refugees from all of the poorer, ruthless or soul-destroying regimes around the world have dreamed of winning a safe haven in one of them.

So while we’ve observed disturbing happenings here at home, Prof Allan has finally articulated the methodology by which the power-hungry and misguided are undermining one of the fairest, most inclusive and enjoyable little countries in the world:

  1. 1.         Judges (i.e. ex-lawyers)
  2. 2.         International law
  3. 3.         Multinational organisations or agreements
  4. 4.         Undemocratic elites

A take out of what he wrote follows.

The Judiciary

Now, why oh why, do we believe these ex-lawyers have a higher moral calling than the plumber or nurse living next door? Yet we do. And they have extraordinary power, despite lawyers being ranked well down the list of the most trusted professions in 2013 (at 37th, they are admittedly above politicians at 46th).

No longer do these ex-lawyers simply apply what Parliament has decreed to the cases before them. Increasingly, activist judges have taken it into their own hands to decide what legislation should mean, often intervening in ways not at all intended by the elected lawmakers.

Our most classic example is Sir Robin Cooke’s radical interpretation of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. The tribal chiefs ceding of sovereignty to Queen Victoria (in return for the rights of British citizens and protection) was suddenly reinterpreted as “a partnership” between the Crown and iwi, with the Crown obligated by the undefined “whatever iwi want them to mean” principles.

The motives behind the appallingly written Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 have become clear. Such loose, vague and undefined legislation provides little restraint on politicians and judges deciding to transfer public coastline to private iwi interests, or to manage it for their personal benefit.

And as suspected, the Maori Party-instigated Constitutional Review aimed to take power from the people and their elected representatives, to put it in the hands of unchallengeable, activist ex-lawyers, again for the benefit of private iwi interests. No doubt, this threat hasn’t gone away.

International Law & Multi-country Trade Agreements

The democracies of the world have been losing their sovereignty. Judges and bureaucrats have been increasingly looking beyond their borders to international arrangements and decrees when making decisions, thereby taking power away from the people and their elected representatives. Our sovereignties are progressively being challenged by the bureaucratic will of the likes of the United Nations, the European Union and trade agreements.

So despite New Zealand leading the world in universal suffrage (of men and women of all races), we seem to accept with no questions asked that the despots in the United Nations have a right to tell us how to run our country and that we should hand over governing power to unelected, self-serving, feudalistic/tribal leaders.

Even Australia has been struggling to enforce plain cigarette packaging within its borders.

Undemocratic Elites

Thanks to the judges, the bureaucrats, the UN and less than principled politicians, self-appointed tribal leaders have gained unchallengeable power in New Zealand.

We see the results in the propaganda and revisionist history being taught in schools and tertiary institutes; what has been a public coastline is now subject to numerous tribal claims and closed door negotiations; there’s the underhand “fire sale” or gift of public assets to tribal leaders; the transfer of control over cities and environmental resources (national parks, lakes, rivers and the Hauraki Gulf) from elected politicians and councillors to unelected, racially-biased private interests.

In Auckland, the Council has facilitated the imposition of undefined tribal processes and unlimited tribal fees on private land owners seeking resource consents (to build a shed or a deck or to chop a tree); even scattering the ashes of recently departed loved ones is to be subject to iwi approval and fees; and more recently there’s the cancellation of council permits to hold running events in Auckland’s public parks in order to appease tribal demands.

Allan describes how such elites are successfully imposing their preference or sentiment on countries without bothering to convince a majority of us that it is the best course in the circumstances. These groups are no different from any corrupt corporate bully, gang or mafia. We Kiwis even pay them handsomely from hard-earned taxes, yet we have no say on who they are or the limits of their power.

Why Don’t the People Notice?

No doubt you’ve noticed some of the tactics being used:

  • •People ignore the message while denigrating the messenger. This has been very successful, especially when the people being attacked and undermined are straightforward, honest folk who don’t have the means or street smarts to outwit devious political games. The fact that our tabloid media love a stoush, and have no wish to investigate or report actual facts doesn’t help.
  •  •They highlight democracy’s failings, while ignoring its strengths. A common mantra by tribal politicians these days is “Democracy doesn’t work for Maori; it’s tyranny of the majority.”

Well none of us win all the time, but the best long-term lifestyles and outcomes for the people tend to come from democracies, not feudalistic societies.

Maori certainly weren’t doing too well under tribalism in pre-settlement New Zealand. Now living in the South Pacific’s most prosperous nation, Maori have privileged status with more than equal access to health, education and welfare than the citizens of our undemocratic neighbours.

World history has demonstrated time and again that ruthless minorities do tyranny far better than majorities ever do. The quest of many modern tribal leaders is all about securing unchallengeable power and control over New Zealanders and their cash. And currently, they are doing a fine job of achieving it.

  • •They redefine democracy so we don’t realise our vote no longer counts. MMP and its coalitions have certainly muddied the waters with some small parties making gains totally out of proportion to votes won. Now our elected Councillors are falling over themselves to create “partnerships” with self-appointed, unchallengeable and taxpayer-funded tribal leaders. This includes the ability to create racially-biased legislation such as Auckland’s Unitary Plan.

If such deals weren’t with Maori, there’d be a considerable uproar. But so many of us have been indoctrinated to believe Maori are entitled to more, including authority over and above our democratically elected representatives.

Take Action Now

Reading Prof Allan’s book confirms that we have been accurately reading the signs. What’s happening in New Zealand is part of a trend in all complacent, tolerant and prosperous democracies. It can only result in unrest, resentment and strife.

The big question is – will we let the selfish, the appeasers or ignorantly oblivious facilitate the destruction of our democracy? And will we be strong enough to turn the tide?

 

Comments are now closed

Submissions Reveal The Constitutional Advisory Panel’s Duplicity & Spin

Posted on March 30, 2014 by Mike Butler on NZCPR
Mike Butler
An analysis of submissions to the Constitutional Advisory Panel obtained under the Official Information Act reveals an overwhelming and deep opposition to treaty politics. A fact that was obscured in the panel’s report to government. The Constitutional Advisory Panel always said its purpose was to take the nation’s pulse on constitutional matters. If the panel had reflected the wishes expressed in the 5259 written submissions, the recommendations would have been very different to the ‘massaged’ report published before Christmas 2013. I.e.

  • Maori seats in parliament should be abolished, according to 79% of respondents. 8% wanted to retain current system, 5% thought it should be decided by Maori, and 3% wanted Maori seats entrenched.
  • 70% said there should be no separate part-Maori representation in local government. 9% wanted Maori wards.
  • The Treaty of Waitangi should have no future role within New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements, according to 63%, while 16% thought it had a role.
  • Moreover, 72% did not want the treaty to be made a formal part of the constitution. 23% thought it should.
  • Part-Maori electoral participation could be improved in the same way electoral participation is encouraged for all, according to 83%.
  • A total of 66% said that New Zealand should not have a written constitution. 28% wanted a single written document.

(Abridged. Percentages have been rounded to whole numbers)
Click here to read Mike’s full article

 

Comments are now closed

1 2
%d bloggers like this: