image of a ballot box

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION – DISPROPORTIONAL INFLUENCE

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION – DISPROPORTIONAL INFLUENCE

 

By Dr Muriel Newman

The 446,287 special votes cast during last month’s election have now been counted. According to the Electoral Commission, the final election tally gives National 44.4 percent of the party vote and 56 seats, Labour 36.9 percent and 46 seats, New Zealand First 7.2 percent and 9 seats, the Greens 6.3 percent and 8 seats, and ACT 0.5 percent and one seat.

In other words, as a result of the special votes, National has lost two seats from the provisional total on election night, while Labour and the Greens have gained one seat each.

In terms of potential future coalition deals, in a Parliament where 61 seats are needed to govern, the National Party and New Zealand First would have 65 seats between them, while Labour, the Greens and New Zealand First would have 63 seats.

Under New Zealand’s previous First Past the Post voting system the party with the most electorates would have won the right to govern. Had the 2017 election been held under FPP, in all likelihood National, which won 41 electorates compared with Labour’s 29, would have gone on to form a government – albeit with only 44 percent of the popular vote.

Critics argued, however, that such minority governments were unfair to the majority who did not vote for the winning party. This, and other factors, gave rise to the review that resulted in a change to the Mixed Member Proportional voting system.

Fast forward 21 years, through seven previous MMP elections, to 2017 and we now have the bizarre situation where the most popular party – and by a clear margin – could be locked out of government entirely.

So, even though the National Party gained ten more seats at the election, than Labour, if New Zealand First decides to team up with Labour and the Greens in a ruling coalition, the 1,152,075 people who voted for National – out of the total of 2,630,173 votes cast – would have no representation at all in the new Government.

In other words, while MMP has delivered proportional representation, it has not delivered proportional power. In fact, we have seen this many times before, when small parties can, and do, hold the country to ransom, wielding influence that is far greater than their proportion of the vote. And while critics are currently expressing strong warnings about the power that New Zealand First now has, we should not forget that in the last three Parliaments, the Maori Party was able to impose its radical separatist agenda onto the country – even though in the 2014 election it gained only 1.3 percent of the total party vote.

As this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, freelance journalist Karl du Fresne explains, not only was MMP sold to New Zealanders on the understanding that it would keep extremism out of Parliament – which it has clearly failed to do – but it has also enabled coalition parties to dodge some of their more difficult election pledges:

“Adopted in 1996 and modelled on the electoral system created in post-war Germany to ensure that no extremist party could again win total power as the Nazis did, MMP was promoted to Kiwi voters as a means of reasserting control over rogue politicians. In fact it turned out to be every bit as flawed as the first-past-the-post system it replaced.

“Under MMP, voters are shut out of the game the moment the votes are in. Unless one party has an absolute majority, which hasn’t happened in any of the eight elections since MMP was introduced, the politicians then disappear behind closed doors to do whatever furtive horse-trading is necessary to cut a deal.

“At that point, all bets are off. Every policy dangled in front of voters during the election campaign is effectively up for negotiation. What were solemnly declared on the campaign trail to be bottom lines become wondrously elastic or evaporate altogether. Voters have no influence over this process and can only await the outcome.”

The election result has some claiming it’s time for another review of MMP.

In particular, the ‘wasted’ vote arising from the demise of the Maori Party and the failure of The Opportunities Party and other minor parties to gain Parliamentary representation, has led to calls for a reduction in the 5 percent party vote threshold to enter Parliament.

In the last three elections, parties bankrolled by wealthy individuals, who positioned themselves at number one on their party list, attempted to win seats in Parliament. Had the threshold been dropped to 4 percent, Colin Craig and the Conservative Party would have entered Parliament in 2014, and if the threshold was 2 percent, Gareth Morgan and TOP would have been successful at this election.

Calls to reduce election thresholds are common in countries with proportional voting systems.

In fact, following a decision in Germany by the Constitutional Court in 2011, that the 5 percent threshold for European Parliamentary elections disadvantaged small parties and was unconstitutional, the threshold was reduced to 3 percent. However, the Court then ruled the new three percent threshold also hurt the equal opportunities of parties and so the threshold was then removed altogether.

As a result, while Germany has still retained a 5 percent threshold in its Federal Parliament, where five parties are represented, in the European Parliament, the seven parties that represented Germany before the threshold was removed, have now grown to 15, with seven of them – including the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party – having only one member each.

In other words, concerns that removing or reducing the threshold under proportional electoral systems would undermine political stability through fragmentation and the rise of radical parties, has indeed been borne out.

If New Zealand’s five percent threshold was lowered, and it was easier for more extremist minor parties to hold the balance of power, then all of the concerns that are currently being raised by the critics of New Zealand First would be exacerbated.

Those critics have also been disapproving of New Zealand First’s insistence that the special votes had to be counted before coalition talks could begin. However, they need to remember that in the past, the special votes have had a profound impact on election results. In 1999, the 225,329 special votes pushed the Green Party over the threshold for Parliamentary representation, resulting in them gaining and other parties losing seven seats – one from New Zealand First, two from National, three from Labour and one from the Alliance.

There have also been criticisms about the timeframe of coalition negotiations, but the overseas experience with MMP shows that most coalitions take months to formalise, rather than weeks. The record is Belgium, which, in 2011, went 589 days without an elected government! That was even longer than in Iraq, which struggled in 2010 to form a government after the fall of Saddam Hussein, only managing to do so on day 249 of the stalemate.

In Germany, which held its election the day after ours, coalition negotiations aren’t expected to deliver results until at least three months after the election. And in Holland, which held its election back in March, a ruling coalition still hasn’t been finalised.

In New Zealand, the length of time between the election and the swearing in of a new government has varied from just over three weeks in 1999, to over eight weeks in 1996 – our first MMP Government. Over the last three elections, the formation of a National-led coalition has taken around four weeks.

One of the most notable aspects of our election was the demise of the Maori Party – at least from Parliament. Many commentators have argued that this was due to it becoming too close to the National Party through its coalition deals over the last nine years. While that may have had an impact, there are many other factors that have contributed to the Maori Party losing the support of voters on the Maori roll.

One that commentators don’t mention is the fact that much of what the Maori Party stands for is at odds with what most New Zealanders want – including most Maori. The Party’s ideology embraces the class system, tribalism, and racial privilege – “values” that are the antithesis of what it means to be a Kiwi: fairness, equality, humility.

The net result of the Maori Party’s agenda is a tribal elite that is doing very well for themselves, while disadvantaged Maori continue to struggle.

Quite simply, by becoming a vehicle for Maoridom’s elite, the Maori Party lost touch with the needs of its electorate base.

In fact it is also likely that the Maori Party had become too radical for most Maori. At the start of the election campaign, Maori Party President Tukoroirangi Morgan outlined that the ultimate objective of their Maori supremacy agenda was to become a permanent Treaty ‘partner’ in Government: “The Maori Party represents the dreams and aspirations of all Maori who believe that we have a right to share political power and resources as was envisaged under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This year is … about sending a clear and undeniable message that the Maori Party is the only genuine and independent Maori voice in Parliament. We will not be subservient to the Pakeha and tokenistic Maori leadership in the mainstream political parties. Our wero and call to arms is Mana Motuhake – our right to shape our own destiny.”

As it turned out, however, most Maori voters did not support the Maori Party’s separatist approach, preferring instead to support the Labour Party candidates in the Maori seats and be part of the mainstream.

The Maori Party’s co-leader Marama Fox – who stands in both worlds with a Maori mother and European father – was scathing about voters on the Maori roll opting to vote for Labour: “What I think the whanau have done is they’ve gone back to the mothership, they’ve gone back like a beaten wife to the abuser who has abused our people over and over again… They want to go back to the age of colonisation, where the paternalistic parties of red and blue tell Maori how to live.”

Such was her anger on election night that she even refused to concede defeat: “I don’t concede because conceding means that we let red and blue government rule our people like they’ve done so for a hundred and fifty years. I don’t concede to that. Not ever. We’ll be back to fight another day.”

In fact, Marama Fox outlined the plan for shared sovereignty in a recent interview in the Listener: “In her vision, New Zealand would gradually move to its own unique form of governance, one that would abandon the Westminster model in favour of Maori customs, principles and values.”

She had ‘plotted it out’: “It would take 36 years – 12 election cycles – for a Maori sovereignty party to share government… it’s a radical vision… but if we believe in it, then we need to march towards it. The critical step in shifting New Zealand thinking is to make the Maori language a core subject in the country’s schools.”

Marama Fox argued that “people look at things differently once they’ve acquired te reo. It’s a world view. The Maori world view is different and that’s expressed in the language. The language unlocks our history and our thinking.”

In other words, the compulsory teaching of the Maori language is the key to imposing a Maori world view – and Maori supremacy – onto New Zealand. It’s no wonder sovereignty advocates are so strongly pushing for the compulsory teaching of the Maori language in schools. It’s a pre-requisite for their march to ultimate power.

While the Maori Party have lost their Parliamentary representation, it would be naive to think they will disappear.  No doubt they will return to activism while they rebuild their party in the hope of coming back as a more powerful force in three years time. That activism will include targeting the most impressionable members of our community, with a campaign to make Maori language compulsory in our schools – and continue to portray Maori as the chief victims of our history.

[From a newsletter by Muriel Newman]

John Key funny

Arise Sir John

Disclaimer:

Whilst I have reblogged this article from another blog, and I do agree that John Key has been a disaster for this country, it does not mean I or 1Law4All agree with every statement made in the article. For example, I don’t believe we have true poverty in New Zealand. If you calculate the number of people living in poverty as the number living on a percentage of the average wage, then we will always have poverty, even if that same percentage are on an income of $100,000.00 a year. It’s a ridiculous way to decide if people are living in poverty. I also know that by always stating the number of kids, rather than the number of people, is designed to tug at the heart strings, (or guilt strings), because most of us know that if kids are living in poverty, it’s their parents fault. Not the Governments or the taxpayers.

Arise Sir John

For creating a New Zealand where there are over 250,000 kids living in poverty …

For refusing to get the bodies out of the Pike River mine and thereby helping individuals avoid justice …

For Dirty Politics …

For the increasing numbers of homeless sleeping rough …

For selling off shares in the electricity companies and in Air New Zealand and enriching the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us …

For presiding over the development of a housing crisis yet refusing to accept that one existed …

For increasing the Crown’s debt from $10 billion to $93 billion and claiming this was evidence of sound financial management …

For widening inequality in NZ …

For the widening sexist pay gap in NZ …

For legislating to give Sky City further gambling rights so that the convention centre can be built on the back of problem gamblers …

For attacking scientists, reporters and media …

For the repeated lie that every budget would result in a further 170,000 jobs being created …

For ruling out an increase in GST but then implementing one …

For stuffing up negotiations with Warner Bros, Rio Tinto, SkyCity …

For systematically under funding health …

For deliberately running down state housing stock …

For increased surveillance and “jihadi “brides” fear mongering …

For running down the education system with stupid ideological policies …

For the rising rates of “third world” diseases of poverty and overcrowding …

For claiming that tax cuts were fiscally neutral when they caused Crown debt to escalate …

For wanting to make New Zealand a nirvana for the 1% …

For harassing a waitress (and making us an international laughing stock) …

For the stupid failed “War on P” …

For wasting $26m on a failed vanity flag referendum …

For suspending local democracy in Canterbury …

For the creation of the working poor …

For under funding mental health and the highest suicide rates ever …

For claiming that he would apply higher Ministerial standards but then allowing Murray McCully to complete #sheepgate …

For destroying New Zealand’s ability to respond to climate change …

For the fiasco of private prisons …

For taxing paperboys and girls …

For forcing the TPP down our throats …

For turning your back on meaningful refugee increases …

For trying to use tax payer money to pay your Bradley Ambrose payout …

For destroying so many of our waterways in the name of intensified dairying …

For sheltering ministers who have been incompetent and worse …

For lying habitually about everything …

And for all that – achieving nothing of vision or significance …

For pandering to Maori demands, fueling resentment and entitlement and increasing racism in New Zealand…

For allowing mega companies to take our fresh water for nothing…

For championing racist policies which have destroyed New Zealand’s democracy…

Arise Sir John.

By: of The Standard

The last few in green I’ve added. I’m sure you can think of many more. Let’s hear them in the comments!

 

Save

Save

Photo of Casey Costello

An Outstanding Landmark Speech by Casey Costello – Hobson’s Pledge

An Outstanding Landmark Speech by Casey Costello – Hobson’s Pledge

Please read this amazing speech by Casey Costello of Hobson’s Pledge.

BEWARE OF SEPARATISM – WE ARE NEW ZEALANDERS FIRST

by Casey Costello

“He iwi tahi tatou… At this time in New Zealand I don’t think there is a more powerful statement to be made.

Hobson’s Pledge has been established with total commitment to New Zealand’s history of equality – setting precedent for inclusion and unity.

Standing next to Don Brash does of course raise the question as to who I am, on what authority can I speak on such an important issue, and to be honest it is a question I ask myself.

Don Brash is a person who, on top of his personal and professional achivements, has continued to have the conviction, fortitude and integrity to never walk away from any opportunity to support and encourage our nation’s leaders and decision makers.

On top of this he has been consistent and steadfast in his position regarding equality before the law, the founding principle of Hobson’s Pledge Trust.

This consistency in his position has somehow been used as a reason to minimize and negate our message.

Astounding that someone with such a political background has remained steadfast on any issue let alone an issue as important as this.

For my part I am proud to be a spokesperson and my credentials are simple.

I am a New Zealander.

I am so proud of our nation, our place in the world and our melting pot culture.

We are not without our history both good and bad but it is time to focus on our future, on the path that New Zealand is taking in the years ahead.

There are many challenges that face us in terms of housing, protecting our environment, managing our nation’s resources and supporting those in need.

These are issues that impact all New Zealanders and are not peculiar to any ethnicity.

Hobson’s Pledge seeks to highlight the actions that are being taken by our government that undermine the foundations our country was built on – equality, democracy, and unity.

We have reached a point where we are being asked to identify by ethnicity and not citizenship.

I am a New Zealander, a Maori and a descendant of Anglo/Irish settlers who came here in the 1860s but firstly a New Zealander.

We all have our journey that brought us to this country and our unifying factor is our New Zealander citizenship.

Regardless of when we or our ancestors came here we have always known that our citizenship assures us equal recognition and representation before the law.

When I became involved with Hobson’s Pledge I was aware of an increasing level of concern and frustration that exists broadly among New Zealanders in regard to separatist policies that were creating racial division.

Unfortunately this was a subject difficult to discuss for fear of being labelled racist and anti-Maori.

Even when I speak out on this divisive and separatist platform that our government has created it has been suggested that I am a “token”.

I have had my ancestry and credentials as a Maori challenged.

It has even become an issue as to how much Maori I am, apparently percentages count.

To be clear I am here to speak for Hobson’s Pledge as a New Zealander with respect for the Treaty of Waitangi, for all the people that are part of our nation and to protect our legacy of forward thinking inclusive legislation as first demonstrated in the treaty…

He iwi tahi tatou – we are now one people.

But our Government, our nation’s leaders are NOT allowing us to be one people.

We are being delivered separatism and an erosion of our democracy on the basis that this will redress historical issues and achieve an equality that we are expected to accept has not previously been available to Maori.

This is not true.

I have been privileged in my life to be raised at a time where I did not know that Maori ancestry deprived us of an opportunity to succeed, where we were not equal.

When I stood beside my grandfather while he worked his land in Whakapara, no one told me he was poor, that we were disadvantaged.

Despite the fact that, if he was assessed by today’s standards, he would be deemed to be “in need” my grandfather, Honi Pani Tamati Waka Nene Davis, never considered that he was not equal and that he had been prevented from achieving economic prosperity.

What he did know was that he was responsible for his family and he got up every morning and proudly took care of those that depended on him.

Together with my gracious, proud and loving grandmother all their mokopuna were taught their culture and instilled with pride.

We were taught respect, we knew how to show empathy, and we were never in any doubt about how much we had to be grateful for.

When my mother married my father they left Northland to start their family and all six of us were raised in Auckland.

We remained connected with our heritage both Ngapuhi and Anglo/Irish.

Just like so many New Zealanders we knew where we had come from and that there was no limit on what we could become.

And there were no limits… but I suppose the difference was that there was definitely no handouts.

I vividly recall my brother full of teenage arrogance deciding that he would leave school and claim an unemployment benefit.

On finding this out my mother made him pay the money back – no child of hers was going to live on handouts when we were capable of working and succeeding.

I came from a proud heritage and was lucky enough to live in a country where I would not be judged on anything other than my ability and my work ethic.

From leaving school to work in an icecream parlour, through a range of industries, to the Police (leaving as a detective sergeant), vice president of the New Zealand Police Association, to my current position as general manager of a building services company, I have been exposed to a full range of industries and responsibilities and at no time have I ever encountered barriers or restrictions either for my race or my gender.

To go even further I have observed that when in a position of being equally qualified to my peers my ethnicity and gender has been an advantage and I defy anyone to dispute that point.

Never in my lifetime have I seen an instance where being a Maori has been a disadvantage. It has also never been an excuse for lack of achievement.

We are so frequently told that there is a need to make special allowance and extra compensation to those with Maori ancestry because without this we will not see Maori succeed.

This rationale is flawed and any special allowance that is based upon when your ancestors arrived in New Zealand is, at its core, racist and separatist.

For those who try to tell me that this special allowance is needed for Maori to achieve equality then I stand here today to tell you that you insult me, you patronize my heritage and MOST importantly you deprive the generations ahead of us of an inherent belief that anything is possible.

So what has changed from the New Zealand I was raised in to now?
Somewhere along the way Te Tiriti o Waitangi – the Treaty of Waitangi, established to provide equal recognition and opportunity to all New Zealanders – has become the mechanism by which division and disempowerment are the stock in trade.

A runaway train that is gathering momentum channeling increasing amounts of money to frequently self-appointed representatives with virtually no benefit being distributed to those with genuine need.

I defer to the very wise words of Sir Apirana Ngata from a speech he delivered in 1940 –

‘What remains of the treaty of Waitangi? What is there in the treaty that the Maori can today celebrate whole heartedly with you?

‘Let me say one thing. Clause 1 of the Treaty handed over the mana and the sovereignty of New Zealand to Queen Victoria and her descendants forever.

‘That is the outstanding fact today.

‘That but for the shield of the sovereignty handed over to her Majesty and her descendants I doubt whether there would be a free Maori race in New Zealand today.

‘Let me acknowledge further that in the whole of the world I doubt whether any native race has been so well treated by a European people as the Maori of New Zealand.’

I wonder how Sir Apirana would reflect on the situation now.

New Zealand is being divided, the country that was founded on unity and inclusion, the country that was the first to give women the vote, is being divided by a vocal minority that has made it impossible to even have the conversation about the issues of equality and unity without being labelled racist.

Through legislation, policy and process New Zealand is being separated.

I have been told so many times that the reason for the challenges that seem to be confronting Maori is due to grievances that occurred over the last 175 years.

We are asked to believe that Maori are so poorly represented in the all the worst statistics due to racial disadvantage and prejudice.

It is never about poor personal choices and lack of responsibility or accountability.

The strongest message we are bombarded with is that there needs to be a putting “right”, to make amends but this isn’t being done through creating opportunity but through separatist legislation, erosion of our democracy and lastly handing over money without any condition or control on how it should be used.

We fully acknowledge that where it can be established land has been confiscated then compensation should be paid by way of a full and final settlement.

And where are these settlement funds going? Is it being used to support the most vulnerable and in need, has it enhanced prospects for Maori.

Since 1990 over $2 billion has been allocated for settlement and yet this does not seem to be achieving any tangible benefit for Maori.

In fact it seems to be the opposite impact we are being asked to believe things are worse, worse than it was for my grandparents and worse than it was for me.

So for the sake of this elusive equality for those with Maori ancestry we are now eroding our democracy… it seems the more that is given the less is achieved.

It makes me glad that my grandparents are not around to hear Maori leaders promote that it is okay to expect less of Maori; that it is okay to offer no accountability, no responsibility; that it is okay to excuse failure and lack of pride and motivation because of a history that has long since been put right.

The strongest message from so many is that Maori have been failed, deprived, held back. This is not true.

All that is being created by a vocal minority is a demotivating sense of entitlement and mounting resentment.

I am not alone on this, there are many respected and accomplished leaders with a proud Maori ancestry that support this position.

No matter who you are, what your ancestry is, or what country you call home if your Government, if your legislation, if your society continues to send a clear message that you cannot achieve because of some vague, undefined, and frequently imaginary barriers, then you will never achieve. Why would you even try?

I do not stand here claiming there isn’t need, there isn’t poverty, there isn’t social issues but this is not exclusive to any ethnicity.

More and more is being done to ensure that there is not even a suggestion of bias or inequality but we still see Maori being more poorly represented in the worst statistics now than they were 30 years ago.

And yet we still cannot stop and discuss the situation without cries of racism.

I am fully aware of the challenges and often horrific conditions that exist for those in New Zealand who are vulnerable and in need.

I have 14 years of Police service, mostly in South Auckland that gives me the knowledge and first-hand experience to be able to comment on the challenges that face our most vulnerable.

Hobson’s Pledge fully acknowledge that need exists and I believe every society must be judged on how they treat their most vulnerable and most in need.

But need is based upon need, not on ethnicity.

Equal distribution of support is essential and cannot be prioritized based upon race or upon when you or your ancestors arrived in New Zealand.

Maori have succeeded and continue to succeed in academia, arts, business, media, politics.

To continue to claim special representation is needed is patronizing, divisive and counterproductive.

Hiding behind their claims of addressing equality our Government is protecting their alliances and balance of power by making concessions that undermine our democracy and create inequality before the law.

Management of our resources, control of fresh water, Hauraki Gulf, Waikato River, even down to consulting on the use of geographically significant place names… the concessions continue

And yet New Zealanders are still reluctant to speak out for fear of being seen as ignorant and racist… best not to mention that despite all the fancy words, the Emperor is actually naked!

Our Prime Minister has the arrogance and demonstrated contempt for those people who have supported his party to suggest that “New Zealand has moved passed this” – deriding Hobson’s Pledge for its position.

How offensive that he can scoff at a stand for equality and unity while actively endorsing legislation that is dividing New Zealand based on race.

Our strength as a nation will continue to grow through recognizing our diversity, individual accountability, personal responsibility and our foundation of unity: he iwi tahi tatou

We cannot allow the voice of a few to force us into separatism.

I ask you for your support. I ask you to help us send a very clear message that New Zealanders are smarter and more informed than our Government gives us credit for.

Register your support. Give us the numbers to verify the importance of this issue. It is through your support, your donations and your involvement that we can create the Political appetite for change.

In the powerful words of another respected and accomplished Maori leader, Sir Peter Buck:

‘Beware of separatism. The Maori can do anything the Pakeha can do, but in order to achieve this we must all be New Zealanders first.'”

Casey delivered this landmark speech in Tauranga on the 22nd of November, 2016.

Twenty Two Mendacious Modern (part-)Maori Myths

A useful reference when challenged on your stance of 1Law4All:

  1. The Maoris are indigenous to NZ.

Wrong. Unlike the Indians in North America and the Aborigines in Australia, who have been on their land for tens of thousands of years, gaggles of Maoris arrived in New Zealand about 1250 A.D. a mere 400 years before Abel Tasman. At Cape Reinga there is a hillock that, according to Maori lore and the accompanying sign, the spirits of dead Maoris leave from on their journey home to Hawaiki, thus showing that even the modern part-Maoris don’t believe that they are indigenous.

  1. The Maoris enjoyed an idyllic life before the arrival of the white man.

Before the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 New Zealand was divided among numerous warring tribes. Since 1820 about one third of their population (43,500) had been killed as a result of tribal warfare and all lived in constant fear of being attacked by a stronger tribe with better weapons. Cannibalism, ritual human sacrifice, slavery, female infanticide, witch-doctory and a lack of any form of law and order were features of their Stone Age existence.

  1. The Maoris did not cede full sovereignty at Waitangi in 1840.

This lie has recently been put out by the Waitangi Tribunal at the behest of part-Maori radicals. By Article One of the Treaty the chiefs ceded full sovereignty of these violent and anarchic islands to Queen Victoria forever as the speeches of Rewa, Te Kemara, Kawiti and other chiefs of the time show. Twenty years later at the Kohimarama (Auckland) conference, the largest gathering of chiefs in New Zealand history, they declared that full sovereignty had been ceded in 1840. If the chiefs did not cede sovereignty, they would have continued their cannibalism, which meant a lot to some of them.

  1. Those tribes, like Tuhoe and Tainui, whose chiefs did not sign the Treaty, are not bound by it.

The obvious answer to this is that Tuhoe, Tainui, etc. should return to the taxpayer all their substantial Treaty settlements. For how do those tribes take a  settlement from a Treaty that their tribal forebears did not sign? However, as is so often the case, the obvious is not the truth. By living peacefully under the law for several generations – paying taxes, receiving welfare benefits, fighting in the armed services, etc. – these and other tribes have, by their actions, accepted the sovereignty of the Crown. Whether or not their forebears signed the Treaty is irrelevant. End of story.

  1. The Treaty of Waitangi was a “partnership” between the Crown and Maori.

No. Full sovereignty was ceded to Britain in 1840 as Britain, at the time the greatest empire in the history of the world, did not go in for “partnership” agreements with Stone Age chiefs who had been unable to bring peace and order to their own lands. Indeed, one of the instructions of Colonial Secretary, Lord Normanby, to Captain Hobson, was to walk away if full sovereignty could not be ceded as, without it, Britain would have no legal basis for bringing order and peace to the islands. No special concessions or “partnership” were mentioned in the Treaty for the simple reason that there was no partnership.

This was clearly understood by all parties until the Maori radical movement got off the ground in the 1980s. Realising that by the words of the Treaty they could not get superior rights over other New Zealanders, they invented the “partnership” concept for that very purpose. For reasons of cowardice, treason or self-interest, others, politicians, judges, bureaucrats – have bought into this lie. It is also being taught in our schools in an effort to soften up the next generation for a whole new tranche of tribal demands.

  1. There are principles of the Treaty.

No, the Treaty was a very simple document of only three Articles, none of which mentions “principles” or “partnership.” Since the Treaty gave equality for the first time to all the people of New Zealand, the grievance industry of the late twentieth century knew that they could not get special race based privileges from the Treaty itself and so, 150 years after the event, they invented for the first time the fictions of “principles” and “partnership” to give them what the Treaty does not.

  1. There are two conflicting versions of the Treaty one in English and the other in Maori.

There is only one Treaty and it’s in Maori – (Te Tiriti). It was signed by around 500 chiefs. It was translated from the English draft, known as the Littlewood document. Hobson’s secretary, James Freeman, later made some English replica versions of the Treaty, adding his own phrases here and there. Those were neither drafts of the Treaty nor translations of it. But one of these replica versions in English was signed by some chiefs at Waikato Heads because the genuine manuscript copy intended for signing had not arrived in time for the meeting. By the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the government has adopted this illegitimate version, signed by a mere 49 chiefs in the abovementioned circumstances, as the “official” English Treaty, displacing Te Tiriti that was signed by nearly 500 chiefs!!!!

  1. The Treaty of Waitangi is a “living document.”

Wrong. The Treaty was merely the pre-condition for establishing British rule, which Governor Hobson did by proclamation later in 1840. By the end of 1840, the Treaty was regarded as having performed its function, viz. acceptance by the chiefs of British sovereignty in exchange for full British citizenship for all Maoris.

It’s only become a “living document” for those who want to expand its meaning so as to give ever more spurious rights to the tribal elite -­ including people like former Labour Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Cullen, who, since his retirement from Parliament has become the highly paid chief Treaty negotiator for the Tuwharetoa tribe for which, interestingly, if not worse, he used his ministerial position to grant a generous part of the nation’s forests under the Treelords deal a short time earlier.

  1. Colonisation was bad for Maoris.

In one bold stroke the Treaty of Waitangi freed all the chiefs’ slaves (about 10,000 of them). They were then free to take work on things like road building contracts, thus earning money and being able to spend it how they liked.

The Treaty brought an end to tribal warfare and cannibalism, thus giving individual Maoris a right to life that they had not had before. For a society that had not even invented the wheel or writing, colonisation brought all the advanced inventions, comforts and contemporary medicine of the Western world. In 1840 the average life expectancy of a Maori was less than 30 years. In 2012 it was 72.8 years for men and 76.5 years for women.

  1. Maori had to wait 27 years after 1840 before being granted the vote in 1867.

Not so. Maoris had the same representation as all other New Zealanders from the very beginning. The Treaty had given them the full rights of British subjects. In 1853 all men over twenty-one who owned property (with no distinction for race) could vote. At the time about 100 Maoris (mainly leaders) were enrolled to vote and by 1860 some 17% of the electorate were Maoris. The special Maori seats in Parliament were introduced in 1867 when all Maori men over twenty-one (with no property provision) could vote. By contrast, a property qualification still applied to Europeans so that many remained excluded. Those Maoris with freehold land could vote in general seats until 1893. In 1893 all women, including Maori, were granted the vote.

  1. In the 1850s and 1860s Maoris paid most of the country’s taxes.

In the financial year ended June, 1859, for example, the great majority of government income (£150,471 out of £175,310) was from customs revenue. This is manifestly not from Maori as any separate entity.

  1. Confiscation of lands from rebellious tribes during and after the Maori Wars was a breach of the Treaty.

In the words of Sir Apirana Ngata, the first Maori to graduate from a university and probably the greatest thinker that Maoridom has yet produced, “The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This itself is a Maori custom revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations can not therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.”

  1. In 1863, during the Maori War, Governor Grey “invaded” the Waikato.

This misrepresentation has been bandied about for several years, usually by so-called “professional historians” with an axe to grind. The word “invade” suggests a hostile entry by a foreign power ­e.g. Hitler invading Poland in 1939 and Argentina invading the Falkland Islands in 1981. Since Grey was the Governor of New Zealand, holding legal jurisdiction over the whole country, it was not possible for him to “invade” any part of it. What he did was to lawfully send troops into the Waikato to suppress a rebellion against the sovereign power – something that every state is entitled to do. That is not an “invasion.”

  1. There’s no harm in “co-governance agreements” between Crown and part-Maori.

Wrong. Co-governance agreements are a violation of both democracy and national sovereignty. Co-governance undermines the power of our democracy to make decisions for the general good since unelected tribes have effective veto powers and see things only from their own narrow interests. By his co-governance agreements with Tuhoe and other favoured tribes, Treaty Minister, Christopher Whinlayson, is driving a racist, separatist sword through the nation’s sovereignty and undermining our hard-won democracy.

  1. The Maori name for New Zealand is Aotearoa.

Pre-1840 the Maoris did not have a name for the whole of New Zealand as they had no sense of a Maori nation – they were­ just separate warring-with-one-another tribes.

In 1643 the country was named New Zealand by the States-General (Parliament) of Holland and this has been its name for 370 years. Aotearoa as a fanciful name for New Zealand invented only in 1890 when S. Percy Smith used it as a make-up name for the whole country in his fictional story of Kupe. Nu Tirani appears in the Treaty of Waitangi. “Aotearoa” does not.

  1. Tuheitia of the Waikato is the Maori king.

Like all other New Zealanders Tuheitia is a subject of Queen Elizabeth II and no monarch can be the subject of another. It is legally impossible. He might be a chief – even a high chief, but a king he is not.

  1. Maoris (“tangata whenua”) have a greater claim to New Zealand than other New Zealanders.

There is no such thing as an ethnic Maori and there may not even be any half-castes as a result of several generations of Maoris cross-breeding with other races. We now have a race of part-Maoris with more European blood in them than Maori. So “tangata whenua” (people of the land) is therefore meaningless. The Treaty specifies 1840 Maori as tangata Maori.

Furthermore, in a modern democracy that is committed to equal rights for all citizens it is both absurd and offensive that any racial group should have superior rights to other New Zealanders. The mere chance of whose canoes or boats arrived first is irrelevant.

  1. Maoris deserve special grants and privileges because they are at the bottom of the socio-economic heap.

Yes, a number of part-Maoris are not doing well; more than for other ethnic groups. But struggling citizens of all races should be helped on the basis of need, not race.

Far too much of the taxpayer-funded Treaty settlement and other race-based payouts from NZ taxpayers have gone into the pockets of the pale-faced tribal elite people like the multi-millionaire Irish New Zealander, Stephen (alias Tipene) O’Regan.

  1. The high imprisonment rate of part-Maoris is the result of the Crown not honouring the Treaty of Waitangi.

No. People are imprisoned for things they have chosen to do. Those who are brought up in a good moral environment are less likely to commit crimes.

  1. Most New Zealanders see nothing wrong with Maori privileges; it is only a few fuddy-duddies who object.

Wrong. Some poll results:

* 79% No to special Maori seats in parliament (Submitters to the Constitutional Advisory Panel)

* 82% No to compulsory Maori language in schools (yahoo Xtra poll)

* 96% of non-Maori students of Year 9 and above do NOT learn Maori despite it being an available option in many schools (NZ Herald, 23 July, 2014)

* 85% No to special Maori housing (Bay of Plenty Times, 20 April, 2013)

81% No to “Maori are special” (Close Up poll, July, 2011)

* 81% No to Maori names for North Island and South Island (Stuff poll, 2/4/13)

* 82% No to “h” in Wanganui (Referendum conducted by Wanganui District Council, 2006)

* 79% No to a special Maori voice on the committees of Rotorua Council (Rotorua Daily Post, 9/5/14)

* 82% No to special Maori wards on New Plymouth Council (Taranaki Daily News, 15/5/15)

* 79% No to Maori wards, Waikato District Council, April, 2012

* 80% No to Maori wards, Hauraki District Council, May 2013

* 79% No to Maori wards, Nelson District Council, May, 2012

* 52% No to Maori wards, Wairoa District Council, March, 2012

* 68% No to Maori wards, Far North District Council, March, 2015

* 70% want Maori wards in local government abolished (Consumerlink, Colmar Brunton poll, March, 2012)

* 68% want the Waitangi Tribunal abolished

  1. In the 1800s Maoris “lost” most of their lands.

Apart from the relatively small percentage of land confiscated as a punishment for rebellion in the 1860s (See Myth No. 12) Maoris did not “lose” their lands; they sold them for valuable consideration at a mutually agreed price. Whether they spent the proceeds wisely or not was their own choice. There is a world of difference between “losing” something and selling it.

  1. Those who oppose special rights and privileges for part-Maoris are “racists”.

This is a contradiction in terms and is propagated by people who are either mischievous or just plain dumb. Special rights/privileges for one race are a violation of the democratic principle that we should all be treated equally. To demand equality is not being “racist.” The real racists are those of the radical tribal elite who are trying to subvert our democracy with their endless racist demands.

These false claims by the tribal elite, aided and abetted by certain academics, judges and politicians acting for their own dubious motives, are trying to overturn a way of life in which we are all New Zealanders, equal before the law and with equal representation in government.

A purpose of 1Law4All is to reinforce the values that have made New Zealand what it is and for which our servicemen have died on the battlefield, and to expose the lies and racism which – in the twenty-first century – are tearing our nation apart. The continuing transfer of what were once public assets like forests and the foreshore and seabed ­and even state houses – to small, private tribal groups and the racist institutionalisation of a privileged status for those who happen to have been born part-Maori amount to the most radical change in our recent history and the most disastrous in its long term effects.

Citizens have a responsibility to be informed and, if sufficiently concerned, to cease voting from ancient habit rather than clear thought and an intelligent assessment of what is going on. Both National and Labour have been responsible for creating the mess that we are in and they are hardly the types to get us out of it.


Click the ‘download’ button below to save a copy of these myths for your use and reference. Perhaps print a copy to have on hand, too? (Four A4 pages)
Download

Racism – So what is racism?

So what is racism?

The Oxford New Zealand Dictionary online defines it as:

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

The Cambridge Dictionaries Online define it as:

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

The Mirriam-Webster online Dictionary as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

liberalshout-racism
Unfortunately, they are right.

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

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

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

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

Alexis Jay inquiry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Open Letter to New Zealanders

What does it take to wake people up to the racist power play threatening our country’s peace and prosperity?

Some Aucklanders have recently been shocked by the Council’s “racist” survey asking residents to rate their feelings towards ethnic groups including Pakeha, Chinese, Indian, Korean and “other Asian” people, and say whether they contributed to the economy or not… (Herald on Sunday 4/5/14).

Replace these designations with those of “Jew”, “Black” or “Homosexual” and we could be in Nazi Germany of the 1930s. Call me an alarmist, but we only have to read a bit of history to know that this is how it starts. Will some of us be forced to wear a New Zealand version of the badge of shame? Will we or our children be forced out in some way?

Innocuous Start

Our first move away from the enlightened and democratic “one law for all” creed was the push for Maori to receive extra privileges and priorities. While innocent and tolerant Kiwis thought they were giving a leg up to the underprivileged or paying for real grievances, the reality has been quite different. No matter how well off they are, people with a bit of Maori blood are increasingly entitled to unelected and unaccountable power at all levels of government, priority in healthcare, a rewritten history taught in schools and universities, and all sorts of taxpayer-funded hand-outs ranging from ipads to millions of dollars for dubious reasons and causes.

Same Terrible Result

Treating one ethnicity as privileged always means that others will be disadvantaged in some way. It starts with money, then come the law changes (as we’ve already seen in Auckland’s Unitary Plan giving unsubstantiated tribal groups unspecified, unlimited power to charge and control private properties). As night follows day, this course will gather momentum and ultimately result in misery and destruction for all.

The people pushing race-based government are either evil, selfish or simply naïve.

Auckland Council’s Unitary Plan and now this survey indicate the mindset of their dominant bureaucrats and politicians. It is too late to be afraid, it is now time to stand up to the racists throughout local and central government. We must stop our slide towards becoming a South Pacific Zimbabwe.

We Kiwis of all ethnicities simply cannot do this to our descendants. Offer your skills to 1Law4All today or do your own thing, in your own way.

Just be sure to be on the right side of history.

 

Comments are now closed

Book Launch: Democracy in Decline

book launch

Professor James Allan

The University of Auckland Business School invites you to the launch of Professor James Allan’s new book, Democracy in Decline.

Democracy in Decline charts how democracy is being diluted and restricted in five of the world’s oldest democracies – the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Professor Allan targets four main, interconnected causes of decline – judicial activism, the transformation and growth of international law, the development of supranational organisations, and the presence of undemocratic elites.

He presents a convincing argument that the same trends are occurring whether the country has a constitutional bill of rights (United States and Canada), a statutory bill of rights (the United Kingdom and New Zealand), or no bill of rights at all (Australia).

Identifying tactics used by lawyers, judges and international bureaucrats to deny that any decline has occurred, Professor Allan looks ahead to further deterioration caused by attacks on free speech, intolerant worldviews, internationalisation through treaties and conventions, and illegal immigration. Social and political decisions, Professor Allan argues, must be based on counting every adult in a nation state as equal.

Professors Allan’s lecture will be of interest to anyone concerned with majority rule and fairness in numbers.

About the speaker

Professor Allan is the Garrick Professor of Law at the University of Queensland. Originally from Canada, he practised law at a large firm in Toronto followed by the Bar in London before moving to teach law in Hong Kong, New Zealand and Australia.

He has published widely in the areas of constitutional law, legal philosophy and bill of rights scepticism. He is also a regular contributor to The Australian, The Spectator Australia and Quadrant. He was elected to the Mont Pelerin Society in 2011.

Professor Allan worked in the Faculty of Law at the University of Otago for 11 years from 1993 to 2004. During that time he was a regular contributor to the National Business Review.

Register for the book launch.

Please register by Monday 12 May 2014
Event Details
Speaker: Professor James Allan
Date: Tuesday 13 May 2014
Time: 6pm for 6.30pm start
Venue: The University of Auckland Business School

Lecture Theatre OGGB4, Level 0,
Owen G Glenn Building,
12 Grafton Road, Auckland

 

Comments are now closed

Standing Up For Democracy in NZ – YOU Hold The Key

Article – Lewis Verduyn from It’s Our Future

We are all born equal, and sovereignty resides in the People, whose power is the source of law. But if you don’t know the basic rules of the game, you will be incapable of defending your rights and freedoms, while your Public Servants will become your …

Standing Up For Democracy in NZ – YOU Hold The Key

by Lewis Verduyn
October 11, 2013

We are all born equal, and sovereignty resides in the People, whose power is the source of law. But if you don’t know the basic rules of the game, you will be incapable of defending your rights and freedoms, while your Public Servants will become your government masters.

People create governments to serve, not rule. Our representatives are elected into office, not power. So when our government repeatedly defies the will of the People, rolls back democratic processes, avoids debate by acting under urgency, and passes legislation that violates our Bill of Rights, it’s time to examine our “democracy”.

The John Key government has dismissed widespread opposition to asset sales, the secret TPP talks, the planned cuts to RMA protections, and the controversial GCSB spying act which rejects the democratic precept that natural rights cannot be overridden without demonstrable cause. Ministers have ignored and demeaned the Law Society, the Human Rights Commission, and the Privacy Commissioner. Even more concerning is the apparent suppression of critical resource consent information in favour of vested interests.

So is our Kiwi democracy being steadily eroded by those who would take advantage of their positions of trust, and what are the fundamental principles that underpin our rights and freedoms? What exactly is a democratic government?

Some basic principles of democratic governance:
• All people are created equal, with inalienable rights and freedoms.
• Sovereignty resides in the People, whose power is the source of Law.
• Private people institute public governments to serve them with Public Servants.
• Officer holders of governments are accountable to their employers, the People.
• The State cannot grant any privilege that is not already a sovereign right.
• A government that ignores the inherent right of consent is not democratic.
• Rights carry duties, starting with the eternal vigilance needed to protect them.

The right to self-determination is an imperative principle of democratic governance and national sovereignty. But it is easier to describe the inherent rights and freedoms of the People than it is to design and protect a democratic society.

In any governing arrangement it is essential to define the roles of those involved to clearly establish duties and responsibilities.

A democratic government is a Public Trust:
• A freely-elected government is a Public Trust instituted by private sovereign people, together called “the State”.
• Government officers are Trustees called “Public Servants”. All Public Servants have a Fiduciary duty to serve the best interests of the Beneficiaries, called “the People”.
• As grantors and underwriters, the People are burdened with the ultimate responsibility for their Public Trust.

The People delegate limited powers to their Trustees, giving them authority to act on their behalf in the role of Public Servants. These Public Servants perform their management duties subject to their jurisdictional authority.

Public Servants often presume that they have authority over you, which is not always true, such is their conditioning, and ours.

Jurisdiction follows a natural hierarchy. The order of jurisdiction is logical:

Nature/God > Man/Woman > State/Government > Corporation/Person

Men and women live in the jurisdiction of the Common Law, which is de jure “in law”.

The jurisdiction of the State is de jure Common Law.

New Zealand’s system of government is a de jure constitutional monarchy. Every office holder including the Head of State, the Queen – who governs “in the right of” the People, swears an oath to serve “according to law”, which is de jure Common Law. Therefore, the highest recourse is to the People directly, not their government, hence the constitutional importance of Trial by Jury.

The People’s Common Law power of justice is “Judicial”, while the government’s delegated power of management is “Executive”, and exercised as “Legislative”.

From the beginning, the People knew that the democratic State would be destroyed if the power they vested in the Judiciary was ever corrupted by self-serving interests through the Legislature, for in this way the People’s access to the Common Law could be restricted, and their democratic rights and freedoms could be eroded, quietly reducing them to a life of servitude. As a precaution against corruption, the People have separated the powers and functions of the State.

The three branches of “democratic” government:
Legislature: Enacts statutes to regulate legal entities in society, prescribing “terms and conditions” which depend for their effect upon the consent of the governed. Statutes franchise benefits and privileges in exchange for freedoms and rights, as services that should promote order, welfare and equality.
Executive: The Cabinet with Departments. They are the managers of the government answerable to their employers, the private sovereign People, who will either support their Executive by giving consent, or will oppose their Executive by withdrawing consent, which can be done at any time, not only during a government election, because democracy is not a three-yearly event.
Judiciary: The People’s Courts, for the preservation of the State and Justice. Lower courts apply “the statutes” to the legal entities created and approved by the government according to prescribed legislation. Higher courts, with Juries, decide “the Law” according to evidence and precedents in the Common Law.

Notably, over time, “administrative courts” have arisen in commerce presided over by “commercial list” judges.

The Law and Statutes (Statutes are not “Laws”!)

We hear almost every day that the government is “passing a law”, which strictly speaking is not true, because governments enact statutes, not laws. Statutes are not called laws for the simple reason that they are different in origin and effect. In practice, statutes only have the “colour of law”, not the “power of law”. The use of the word “law” in respect of statutes, without clarification, is misleading.

Statutes are Acts, Bills, and Legislative Instruments:
‘Act, civil law, contracts. A writing which states in a legal form that a thing has been said, done, or agreed.’ – Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856
‘Bill, legislation. An instrument drawn or presented by a member or committee to a legislative body for its approbation and enactment.’ – Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856
‘Instrument, contracts. The writing which contains some agreement, and is so called because it has been prepared as a memorial of what has taken place or been agreed upon. The agreement and the instrument in which it is contained are very different things, the latter being only evidence of the existence of the former. The instrument or form of the contract may be valid, but the contract itself may be void on account of fraud.’ – Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856

All statutes are legislation prescribing “legal” instruments, which are contracts. The origin of all legal jurisdiction over you is your given consent.

The foundation of democracy is the consent of the governed.

If you accept that we are all created equal, and presumed innocent, then how can anyone have authority over you without your consent? It’s not possible.

Statutes, by right, require consent. The New Zealand Police website correctly says: “It’s important for us to know what people think of our service – in New Zealand we police by consent and cannot afford to lose the support of the people we serve.”

You can never be forced to give your consent, because that would be “under duress” which is not genuine consent. Your right to contract, or not to contract, is unlimited. The State cannot remove a right without due process of law, including notice and opportunity to defend. Otherwise, you retain the right to say: “I do not consent”.

Implicit in the right of consent is the right to withdraw consent. Indeed, the People have a duty to do so in order to defend their rights and freedoms, because only the People can redress the corruption of their democratic government. These people may waive societal benefits. But when the imposition of liabilities outweighs the benefits, such a waiver may be justifiable. The choice must be theirs to make.

The de jure jurisdiction is the last line of defence. It divides living men and women from the inferior “legal fiction” government.

Governments create and control legal fictions.

The government is but an agency created by the sovereign People, which therefore cannot rise above its creators. It is brought into our consciousness from nothing. It has no life or will of its own. It is something created and perpetuated in the minds of the participants – it is a “legal fiction”.

A government, as an artificial construct, can create more artificial legal fictions such as corporations or “legal personalities”, over which it has control.

You are born into your own sovereign jurisdiction, as a living entity with inalienable rights and responsibilities. This is your “private capacity”. The government later creates a second legal entity on the Birth Certificate, providing you with a “public capacity”. Since the government controls what it creates, anyone who “acts” in a “public capacity” as a “legal personality” is giving their consent to the government.

Public Servants routinely make the presumption that we are all “in the public”, which is why retaining your rights “in the private” is difficult. To achieve “lawful standing”, as a living man or woman, it is necessary to “rebut the presumption” that you are acting in “joinder”.

Since jurisdiction equates to power, and power equates to money, it is not surprising that a mysterious language has evolved for all legal and lawful matters, called “legalese”. Inevitably, the most important knowledge is obscured and manipulated by those who would subvert the de jure State for their own purposes.

Any court without a jury is an “administrative court”.

Importantly, any court without a jury is an administrative court, without the Common Law authority of the sovereign People. Administrative courts require the free and genuine consent of living men and women, and otherwise have no jurisdiction.

‘The law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is NO authority for administrative courts in this country, and no Act can be passed to legitimise them.’ – Halsbury’s Law 2011

Administrative courts operate with a subordinate de facto “in practice” jurisdiction for the quasi-administration of statutes.

The de facto jurisdiction is Admiralty Maritime, also called the “law of the sea”. It is essentially for settling commercial disputes among publicly registered corporations, including people who consent to “act” as “legal personalities”.

The de jure jurisdiction is Common Law, also called the “law of the land”. It is for the provision of justice among living men and women, whereby decisions of law are made by living men and women on juries, who are not “actors”.

“You get the democracy you are prepared to stand up for.” – John Key, 2007.

We the People are responsible for the failures of our government. Every power exercised by our government is delegated from us.

As a culture, we have become increasingly dependent on the government, and wary of its inflated power. We have been deceived by the corporate media, psychologically conditioned to be subservient, and trained to be material consumers and debtors even if we destroy ourselves and our planet while enriching a parasitic hegemony.

We have forgotten that our Public Servants are indeed our “servants”.

Democracy, by definition, requires the active participation and oversight of the People. If we are not prepared to “stand up” for what we believe in, our lack of rebuke allows corruption to take hold, eroding our democratic rights and freedoms.

However, the People should remember that the “legal personality” has no arms and legs – it has no “standing”. It cannot “stand up”. It is a servant of the State.

People commonly surrender their inherent democratic rights whenever they do not expressly reserve their rights in everyday legal matters, in documents and verbally.

Your consent is your signature. Your consent is your silence. YOU hold the key …

[IMPORTANT: This article reflects the considered opinions of the author, a jurisprudence researcher, and should not be construed as legal advice. By: Lewis: Verduyn, All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice, UCC 1-308]

The Law Statutes
PEOPLE make The Law
by the acceptance/validation of Jury verdicts
PARLIAMENT makes Statutes
by the en-Act-ments of Legislation
“The Law” is the People’s “Common Law”,
unlike Statutory “Colour of Law”
“Statutes” are “Legislative Instruments”,
unlike the “Common Law”
Laws are moral CUSTOMS made effective
by the CONSCIENCE of the People
Statutes are offered CONTRACTS made effective by the CONSENT of the Governed
‘LAW. As a compound adjective “common-law” is understood as contrasted with or opposed to “statutory.” ‘ [Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition] ‘STATUTE. The written will of the legislature…; This word is used in contradistinction to the common law.’ [Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856]
THE LAW PROTECTS THE PEOPLE
from harm, loss, and deceit
STATUTES GOVERN LEGAL ENTITIES
as a franchise benefit to the State
We are ALL EQUAL
in the eyes of The Law
We are NOT ALL EQUAL
in the books of Statutes
Laws are based on PRINCIPLES Statutes are based on PRACTICALITIES
Laws evolve over TIME and often endure Statutes can QUICKLY come and go
LAWFUL refers to THE LAW LEGAL refers to LEGISLATION
A Jury of People can overturn a Statute The Legislature cannot overturn Case Law
Laws can be taken into Statutes
but if repealed in Statute they remain in Law
Statutes can serve The Law
but cannot diminish or expand The Law
De jure “in law” De facto “in practice”
The People’s Common Law
“Law of the Land”
Admiralty Maritime Commercial
“Law of the Sea”

Inalienable Rights
Inalienable Rights are the Inherent, Sovereign, Natural Rights that existed before the creation of the State, and which, being antecedent to and above the State, can never be taken away, diminished, altered, or levied by the State, except by Due Process of Law. Nor can any Inalienable Right be fundamentally removed or waived by contract, whether by non-disclosure, which is fraud and unenforceable in Law, or knowingly by sufferance, which is contrary to the Spirit of the Law and prejudicial to Sovereignty.

The Original, Permanent, Inalienable Rights of every Man or Woman, include:

The Right to Life, Freedom, Health and the Pursuit of Happiness
The Right to Contract, or Not to Contract, which is Unlimited
The Right to Earn a Living Income by being Compensated with Wages or a Salary in a Fair Exchange for one’s Work
The Right to Travel in the Ordinary Course of one’s Life and Business
The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality, free from Unwarranted Invasion
The Right to Own, and Hold Property, lawfully without Trespass
The Right to Self-Defence when threatened with Harm, Loss, or Deceit
The Right to Due Process of Law, with Notice and Opportunity to Defend
The Right to be Presumed Innocent, suffering No Detention or Arrest, No Search or Seizure, without Reasonable Cause
The Right to Remain Silent when accused, to avoid Self-Incrimination
The Right to Equality in the eyes of the Law, and to Equal Representation
The Right to Trial by Jury, being an Impartial Panel of one’s Peers
The Right to Appeal in Law against Conviction or Sentence, or both
The Right to Expose Knowledge necessary to one’s Rights and Freedoms
The Right to Peaceful Association, Assembly, Expression, and Protest
The Right to Practice a Religion, and to have Beliefs, of one’s choosing
The Right to Love, and to Consensual Marriage with Children, as a Family
The Right to Security from Abuse, Persecution, Tyranny, and War
The Right to Refuse to Kill under command, by reason of Conscience
The Right to Live in Peace and be left alone when Law-Abiding

Surely, the most critical failure of The People is their failure to ensure the teaching and common knowledge of their Inalienable Rights. If you do not know your Rights, you effectively have none. By the path of Ignorance, whether by Apathy or Deception, The People arrive in a State of Exploitation, Oppression, and Tyranny.

ENDS

Gross Impudence

GROSS IMPUDENCE

By– Reuben P. Chapple

“In the Kingdom of the Blind, the one-eyed man is King. And he that does not know his own history is at the mercy of every lying windbag.” – outgoing Governor-General, Lord Bledisloe, in his 1922 farewell address.

New Zealand is increasingly being referred to in the public square as “Aotearoa” or “Aotearoa New Zealand.”

This fiction deserves to be mercilessly deconstructed.

The agenda of its promoters is to imply that a pre-existing Maori nation state was rudely subsumed by 19th Century white settler governments and must accordingly be reinstated as “co-equal” to our existing government that governs for all New Zealanders.

When the Treaty of Waitangi was entered into in 1840, New Zealand consisted of hundreds of dispersed and petty tribes, each in a constant state of war with one another, and lacking any concept of nationhood.  Some 512 chiefs signed the Treaty, while a substantial minority refused to, meaning there were probably more than 600 of these individually insignificant groups.

Contrary to modern-day misrepresentation, the Treaty of Waitangi was not with a collective “Maori,” but with tribes. Under the legal doctrine of Privity of Contract, only the parties to an agreement are bound by it, or can claim its protection in the event of a breach. Accordingly, the Crown should never have entertained Treaty claims from tribes such at Tainui, Tuwharetoa, and Tuhoe, whose forefathers never signed it in the first place. Such claims can only be sustained by buying into the revisionist fiction that the Treaty had just two parties: Crown and Maori.

Assertions that a Maori nation state existed when the Treaty was signed rest upon formal recognition by England’s King William IV in 1836 of the 1835 Declaration of Independence of the so-called “Confederation of United Tribes” and associated flag.

Any “official recognition” of pre-Treaty collective Maori control of New Zealand must be placed in its proper historical context, which ethnic nationalists conveniently omit to do.

The so-called “Maori Flag” (not the tino rangatiratanga Maori sovereignty flag of the 1990s) was adopted by Northland chiefs in 1834 at the behest of British Resident James Busby, after a NZ-built ship owned by Europeans was impounded in Sydney for not flying the flag of a recognised nation state.

Busby presented the chiefs with a variety of designs. They eventually chose a flag modelled on that of the Church Missionary Society, with which they were well familiar. This was not a Maori initiative, but a Pakeha-brokered expedient to protect New Zealand’s pre-Treaty commerce.

Nor was the 1835 Declaration of Independence driven by the puny number of Maori chiefs who signed it. This “paper pellet to fire at the French” was fudged together by Busby to head off Colonial Office fears of an impending takeover by French adventurer, Baron De Thierry.

Initially carrying the signatures (or rather the thumbprints) of 35 Northland chiefs, the Declaration was ultimately signed by just 57 chiefs, all residing north of the Firth of Thames. Since these chiefs represented less than 10 percent of all the tribes of New Zealand, the Declaration can hardly be held up as evidence of a national consensus.

The arguments of Maori sovereignty activists are further undermined by the impotence of the handful of chiefs who signed the Declaration to act or even deliberate in concert.

Signatories had pledged “to meet in Congress at Waitangi in the autumn of each year, for the purpose of framing laws for the dispensation of justice, the preservation of peace and good order, and the regulation of trade.” Inter-tribal animosities meant this body never met nor passed a single law, despite their common undertaking to do so.

At the time of the signing of the Treaty, the North and South Islands had  a variety of Maori names, the most popular being Te Ika-a-Māui and Te Waipounamu respectively. However, we must be clear that there was no pre-existing Maori name for what is now New Zealand, because as we have seen, there was no Maori nation state or national consensus to form one.

Had there been a Maori name for New Zealand, the missionaries who drafted both the Declaration and the Maori Treaty text (fluent Maori speakers all) would have known of and used it. Instead, they used the same transliteration of New Zealand (“Niu Tirani”) in both documents to get their point across.

Maori sovereignty activists, who regard the Treaty of Waitangi as written in concrete if it advances their agenda, have successfully smuggled Niu Tirani out of the public discourse, because its use in both the Declaration and the Maori Treaty text underscores the total bankruptcy of their claim to nationhood. “Aotearoa” has been smuggled in as a substitute.

Aotearoa was originally an alternative pre-European Maori name for the North Island. As Muriel Newman notes in her recent article on the New Zealand Geographic Board’s proposed name changes to the North and South Islands, “The Board ruled out Aotearoa for the North Island on the basis that it has been popularised as the name for New Zealand.”

Popularised, indeed!

“Fabricated” is a far better word.

The underlying agenda of the race-hustlers pushing alternative Maori place names is to insinuate into the public mind, through as many channels as possible, their “One country, two peoples” mantra.

Constant repetition then creates the false impression of widespread popular acceptance of what is really nothing more than a propaganda claim.

We see here deployed Adolf Hitler’s Big Lie technique as outlined in Mein Kampf:

n the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

“It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

Hopefully this article will afford right-thinking New Zealanders the ammunition to rebut the grossly impudent lie foisted upon them by Maori sovereignty activists and their supine, guilt-tripping liberal enablers.


To comment on this article, please go to the forum here.

%d bloggers like this: