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.

Swansong

Swansong?

Despite the possibility of civil unrest, the pervasive apathy of so many New Zealanders have made the task of championing racist-free democracy untenable for the 1Law4All Party and its Board.

The Board feels that by continuing to oversee the Party limping along in the way it is, members and donors may be given the impression that the Party has some chance of meaningfully opposing the rampant racism that is perverting NZ’s democracy.

In 2013 and 2014, 1Law4All solicited members with the promise of having the name 1Law4All on every NZ ballot paper. That promise was broken.

The present Board and several hundred stalwart members, donors and supporters have soldiered on since then, resolved to get the name 1Law4All on to every ballot paper and hoping to regain the credibility forfeited by the treachery of certain Board members of that time.

Alas, despite the need being even greater now, time has not healed the wound. The Party has never really recovered from that betrayal of members in 2014. As a consequence and despite everyone’s best efforts, the present position is:

  • The Party lacks the 550 financial members necessary to register to be eligible to lodge a Party List with the Electoral Commission, or utilise the $37,500 allocated to it for public broadcast funding; (see EC letter, below)
  • The Party has insufficient prospective Party List candidates (6-7 would be required if the 5% voting threshold was reached);
  • The Party has no President, or Secretary;
  • The Party has no Leader or deputy;
  • The Party is not broke, but lacks anything remotely like the necessary money to fight an election campaign—est: 1.5 million min;
  • The Party lacks the necessary administrative staff and general human resources necessary fight an election campaign.

Therefore, with a truly heavy and somewhat exhausted heart, the Board has proposed the motion to wind up. However . . .

Possible Alternatives

Instead of winding up, 1Law4All could advertise for candidates for the 64 general electorate seats. With its current bank balance (May 2017) and subject to some modest conditions, 1Law4All would offer to pay 50% of the candidates’ $300 deposit. If that was achieved, 1Law4All would indeed be on every General Election ballot paper. But not its logo. Unfortunately, only registered political parties can use a registered logo beside electorate candidates names on ballot papers.

There is no requirement for 1Law4All to be a registered political party to enable electorate candidates to use the party’s logo and name.

Another option might be assisting with the legal fees of the Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations (CORANZ) in fighting the recently advertised 550+ applications for NZ’s coastline by part-Maori opportunists, using the Marine & Coastal Area Act.

Yet another might be combining with another existing organisation that has the same or very similar objectives.

Or election advertising to ensure the racism of National, Labour & the Greens is well-known by all NZ voters. Of course, that still leaves the problem of who to vote for.

All are welcome to suggest more options for consideration.

The Annual General Meeting of 1Law4All (Inc) is to be held at the Armitage Hotel, 9 Willow Street, Tauranga at 1.00pm on Saturday 24 June 2017.


Electoral Commission Submission

Electoral Commission Submission

1Law4All applied for (taxpayer) funding to assist with broadcasting its policies, as all political parties may do, subject to certain conditions.

On Friday 7 April, a 1Law4All Party representative made an oral submission in support of its written submission, to the Electoral Commission, in Wellington.

From figures available on the Electoral Commissions’ web site, you can get an idea of what 1Law4All and democracy is up against. In 2014 and 2015,  the National Party received donations in excess of five million, three-hundred and seventy-eight thousand dollars. With that sort of money in the coffers, why does it deserve any public money to broadcast its subversively racist agenda message to New Zealand?

Much the same could be said of the Labour Party which received over one million, two-hundred and eighteen thousand dollars in donations. Why does it need any public money to broadcast its equally racist agenda message to New Zealand?

Reproduced below is the 1Law4All’s written Submission to the Electoral Commission (three members).


80% OF YOUR COUNTRYMEN
ARE COUNTING ON YOU
TO GIVE THEM A VOICE

Members of the Electoral Commission

This is an appeal to your conscience. An appeal to each of you as loyal New Zealanders to do your duty and allow the views of 80% of your fellow citizens to be heard.

As these polls and local body referenda incontrovertibly demonstrate, 80% of New Zealanders don’t want a bar of racial favouritism. And yet they are studiously ignored by their representatives.

Decade after decade, four out of five New Zealanders have been treated with contempt by every branch of central and local government, every academic institution, every judicial institution, every media organisation, and every political party. 1Law4All is the only party that can change that.

As a result, the relentless surrender of New Zealand sovereignty gathers pace every year.

This year, the National Party plans to appease the Maori Party by caving into the demands of the Iwi Leaders’ Group to control New Zealand’s drinking water and to slow down every resource consent by agreeing to give every tribe in every district the power to veto every decision.

This will be the end of New Zealand as we know it. It will mean that at least 50% of the power in every council will be wielded by the wealthy leaders of just 15% of the population.

And all in the name of a non-existent ‘Treaty partnership’ complete with non-existent ‘principles.’

Please help us to save New Zealand before it becomes New Zimbabwe. We are a small party. (Few Kiwis are prepared to put their heads above the parapet on an issue which guarantees they will be demonised as racist — simply for wanting racial equality!)

But as you can see from the chart provided, 1Law4All has a huge potential support base.

And most importantly, we have a policy that if publicised widely would prove enormously popular with the 80%, and give them hope where none currently exists.

The policy is a binding referendum. Below is the wording. We would use your money to make sure every New Zealander knew about it. 1Law4All would pressure other parties to accept it.

1Law4All believes many of those 80% would vote for 1Law4All as a result.

Your empowering legislation allows you to be flexible in your ranking of the various funding criteria.

The criteria stress “the need to provide a fair opportunity for each party that qualifies for the broadcast allocation to convey its policies by the broadcasting of election programmes on television”.

1Law4All needs that fair opportunity.

More importantly, four out of five New Zealanders deserve that opportunity to (if 1Law4All may paraphrase a certain president) “MAKE NEW ZEALAND ONE AGAIN.”

So don’t do it for 1Law4All. Do it for your friends, family and neighbours. And do it for yourself. If and when 1Law4All’s TV adverts appear and momentum starts building for the One Law For All Referendum, you will be able to look yourself in the mirror and say, “I helped save my country.”

1Law4All appreciates the opportunity to make the case for New Zealand.

The Hobson’s Pledge Road Show

The Hobson’s Pledge Road Show

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

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

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

To read more and related media items, click here.

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

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

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

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)

A Two Fingers to a Politically Correct Elite

A Two Fingers to a Politically Correct Elite

Ian O’Doherty

13/11/2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s called democracy.

Deal with it.

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

A Racist Attack On Public Rights In Auckland

A Racist Attack On Public Rights In Auckland

– John McLean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hobson’s Pledge Launch

Media Release – Separatism by Nats Looms as Election Issue

Nine years of a National Party Government pandering to separatist demands will be an issue that voters will consider in next year’s general election, Auckland business manager Casey Costello said today.

Ms Costello who, with former National Party leader Don Brash, represents a new national campaign named Hobson’s Pledge, launched today, [28 Sep 2016] said that successive Governments have taken New Zealand further and further away from the kind of country that most New Zealanders want – one where everybody is equal before the law.

“As each chief signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, Governor Hobson said ‘He iwi tahi tatou. We are now one people.’ He did not talk about partnership, or about principles,” she said. “He did not say that unelected tribal appointees would have voting rights on local government councils nearly two centuries later. “The Treaty which chiefs were invited to sign – and overwhelmingly did sign – guaranteed all New Zealanders the same rights and privileges.  It was an extraordinarily enlightened commitment for its time,” Ms Costello said.  “It happened nowhere else in the world, and we should celebrate it.”

Ms Costello, who says she feels driven to step forward for both her Ngapuhi and Anglo-Irish ancestors, made it clear that New Zealand was doomed to increasing racial resentment if we continued on our present track. Hobson’s Pledge Trust has been established to oppose moves at central or local government level which would lock in constitutional preferences for anybody based on when their ancestors arrived in New Zealand.

“We will consider supporting any political party committed to ending such preferences,” Ms Costello said.

Click here to e-mail Casey Costello or phone her: 027 532 4959


To see one of the Hobson’s Pledge adverts running in a number of NZ Community Newspapers, click here.


To listen to a radio interview between Leighton Smith, Casey, and Don Brash, follow the instructions below. Once you get to the page linked to below, search down for the items circled in the illustration below. The interview is broken into segments. Click on 10.00 – 10.15 for the first segment, then, after it’s finished, click on the next one. Continue across the page to hear the full interview, complete with adverts!. Click here to go to the NewsTalkZB radio broadcast web page.

leighton_smith_composite


Racism and Cultural Identity ­

“Racism” and Cultural Identity

by Reuben P. Chapple

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None.

Water WhitesWash

two-face-key-water-rights1[1]


Back in April, 1Law4All published a blog item about two-faced Shonkey & Whinlayson handing off the water rights hot potato to local councils:

PM Delegates Water Give-Away
Prime Minister John Key is moving towards granting preferential water rights to government-created tribal corporations, thus running the risk of losing the support of large swathes of voters who supported the National Party’s previous one-water-law-for-all position.

For those who were adamant naysayers, it has “come to pass” as anticipated, as reported in the Gisborne Herald.

Water WhitesWash

Giving Iwi A Shared Role
Friday, 28 August, 2015
A UNANIMOUS vote by Gisborne District Council has given the go-ahead for a joint management agreement between the council and Te Runanganui o Ngati Porou to manage the Waiapu River catchment, a first of its kind in New Zealand. After listening to a presentation from the runanganui, the council instructed staff to develop the agreement, which will come back to the council’s October meeting for final adoption.

A packed public auditorium heard runanganui presenters Amo Houkamo and Tina Porou describe a historic “win-win” agreement that will allow the iwi to be involved in resource consent applications in the catchment. The sky would not fall because of the agreement, they told the council. Amo Houkamau said this unique agreement could only happen in this district because what was presented could only happen in this region. “We believe this is a win-win situation for the council, for Ngati Porou, the Gisborne district and for the country,” she said.

You whaaaat?
Good for the country?
Yeah, right!

Bye, bye missed equality pie . . .


1 2 3
%d bloggers like this: