‘Taonga’ as defined by Hongi Hika

The Maori dictionary current in 1840 was the 1820 Grammar and Vocabulary of the Language of New Zealand by Cambridge University professor Samuel Lee.

Lee’s linguistic consultant was no honky with an axe to grind.

It was none other than the great Ngapuhi chief Hongi Hika.

(He loved axes too — tomahawks, to be precise — but was in England looking to upgrade to muskets.)

And Hongi defined taonga as property procured by the spear, etc.

It was purely physical

Hongi Hika’s down-to-earth definition of the 1820s could hardly be more removed from the ‘sacred relic’ status conferred by the Treaty negotiators of the 2010s.

To that corrupt one-eyed kangaroo court the Waitangi Tribunal, taonga now means anything our tribal clients can get their hands on.

Physical or metaphysical, doesn’t matter. If it can turn a dollar, it’s a taonga.

But to Hongi Hika, and Hone Heke and the other 511 chiefs who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, their taonga was their stuff.

It was any tool that could give a tribesman an edge in a massively hostile environment where both man and nature were doing their best to kill him.

It was any weapon that could give a chief an edge over the cannibal communist dictator down the road, who might at any time spring from the bushes, hack his head off and swallow his eyeballs.

Remember, these were the times of the Musket Wars.

Between 1807 and 1842, between 20,000 and 60,000 — up to half of all Maori — were slaughtered in an orgy of inter-tribal utu.

And Hongi Hika, who finally got his muskets in Sydney, was the chief slaughterman. (Rivalled only by Te Rauparaha.)

It wasn’t Te Reo or te radio

I just very much doubt that Hongi Hika, or Hone Heke, Te Rauparaha and the other 510 chiefs who put their marks on Te Tiriti, spent much time thinking abstract thoughts about saving their language (which was hardly under threat) or the electromagnetic spectrum.

If they did, they didn’t tell the guys who wrote the dictionaries.

Now maybe you think the 1820 Dictionary might have been out of date by 1840. Maybe you think taonga might have evolved by the time of the Treaty to mean what it means now.

I thought so too. So I got a second opinion. From the second Maori dictionary.

This was the Dictionary of the New Zealand Language by William Williams, published in 1844. (Four years after the Treaty.)

Here’s its entry for taonga.

Still property, but no mention of spears this time.

But on that subject, look what I found a few lines further up…

Now I don’t pretend to be any scholar of Te Reo.

But I do believe nga is the plural of the.

I also thought the nga always came before the noun, so I’m probably wrong, but…

Could it be that taonga started out meaning spears?

I’m expecting to be ridiculed by a Ranginui Walker type for jumping to a false conclusion here.

But I thought I’d ask.

Why does it matter?

Why does it matter what taonga meant in 1840?

Because the Treaty was signed in 1840. Not 1975, not 1987, not 2012 — 1840.

So it’s only fair that we understand not so much what the words mean, but what they meant. In 1840.

Words change their meaning over time. According to my dictionaries, taonga has evolved in four stages:

Property procured by the spear, etc.
Property.
Property, treasure.
Treasure.

Once it meant solely property. Now it means solely treasure.

But in 1840 it meant property.

And that makes Treaty claims for such things as radio waves grossly dishonest.

Published in:

on April 30, 2012 at 5:29 pm Comments (7)

The Treaty, beautifully explained by a wise and honest Maori leader

Sir Apirana Ngata, MA, LLB, D. Lit — the man on our $50 note. (Put there by Reserve Bank Governor, one Donald T. Brash.) If only today’s Maori leaders shared Ngata’s high regard for truth.

THE TREATY OF WAITANGI

AN EXPLANATION

by The Hon. Sir Apirana Ngata
M.A., LL.B., Lit.D.

Published for the Maori Purposes Fund Board

First published in 1922

Translated into English by M. R. Jones

Spaced out a bit for easy reading by J. L. Ansell

The words that follow are those of history’s greatest Maori statesman…

IT WAS on the 6th day of February, 1840, when the Treaty of Waitangi was made.

Waitangi is part of the Bay of Islands in the northern part of the North Island.

It was made between Governor William Hobson on behalf of Queen Victoria and the Maori Chiefs who gathered there on that day.

It was afterwards that some copies of the Treaty were taken to various parts of the island, even to the South Island, and was signed by Maori Chiefs of the various tribes.

Altogether there were 512 signatories.

From then to now the Treaty and the provisions therein have been the subject of discussion by learned men and administrators of Maori affairs.

At the present time the Treaty is widely discussed on all maraes. It is on the lips of the humble and the great, of the ignorant and of the thoughtful.

It was an old lady who asked me quite recently, “Now you tell me: what are its conditions, and why is it the subject of discussion on the maraes?”

I wondered then whether she was right and it was wrong for the name of the Treaty to be so freely discussed on the lips of our womenfolk, when the provisions contained therein were not clear to them.

The Treaty of Waitangi was first written in the English language, and then translated into the Maori language.

The draft was actually written by Governor Hobson, and Busby (who was the previous administrator for the Queen before Governor Hobson) corrected it.

This is what Busby said, and it was printed in the Parliamentary Papers for the year 1861:

“The draft of the Treaty was made by me and was approved by Captain Hobson. He made a few alterations but the fundamental provisions were not altered.”

Some of Busby’s descendants lived at Kairakau near the coast in Hawkes Bay, and later at Tokomaru (Waiapu), where some of the grandchildren still reside.

The Maori version of the Treaty was by Henry Williams, referred to as the Four-eyed Williams, one of the ancestors of the sub-tribe of the Williams.

The English expressions in the Treaty were not adequately rendered into Maori. There were minor parts left out.

However, the Maori version clearly explained the main provisions of the Treaty. Therefore let the Maori version of the Treaty explain itself.

What is a Treaty?

In accordance with the Maori language, it is an agreement between two or more peoples having authority and agreeing between themselves to certain wide powers affecting them all.

The document on which these powers and agreements are recorded is called a treaty.

Let the actual Maori version of the Treaty now show.

THE HEADING OF THE TREATY

This is the heading of the Treaty setting out the reasons for the making of the Treaty:

“Victoria, the Queen of England, in Her feeling of affection towards the Chiefs of the Tribes of New Zealand and in Her desire to retain for them their Chieftainships and also that peace may reign and they live happily, has thought it wise to send a High Personage as Her representative to negotiate with the Maori people of New Zealand, the Maori Chiefs, to agree to the Government of the Queen having access to all parts of the land including the islands.

This is by reason of the fact, that so many members of Her race were living in this land, and many more were coming.

Now, the Queen has thought it good to send me, William Hobson, a Captain of the Royal Navy to be Governor for all parts of New Zealand, to be ceded now and for ever to the Queen and she invites the Chiefs of the assembled tribes of New Zealand and other Chiefs to accept the following provisions”.

This is the heading explaining the reasons why Governor Hobson was sent by Queen Victoria, Queen of England and Her other lands to arrange conditions between the Queen and the Chiefs of the Maori people.

The main purport is in the words:

“This is by reason of the fact that so many members of Her race were living in this land and many more were coming”.

Therefore the Queen was desirous to establish a Government with a view to avert the evil consequences to the Maori people and to Europeans living under no laws.

These are very wise words.

It was correct that many Europeans had settled throughout both islands –missionaries and their families, European sellers of goods, whalers, sailors, thieves and murderers.

It had been stated that 500 convicts had escaped from Australia and were living in various parts of the Bay of Islands just prior to the Treaty.

Maori authority had no affect on them, but they often disturbed the Maori people.

Neither did the laws of the Queen affect them, by reason of the fact that the Queen had no authority over these islands.

According to the records of the missionaries, one thousand of the Maori people were murdered by the Europeans in the years prior to the Treaty, and we have also heard of the Maori people murdering Europeans.

These were lawless times.

Therefore the Queen

“was desirous to establish a Government with a view to avert the evil consequences to the Maori people and to the Europeans living under no laws”.

Now these were the important words:

“living under no laws”.

It was the European conscience of the man who formulated the words of the Treaty who saw that this was the main trouble throughout North and South Islands.

This was the trouble which was forcing itself to be remedied – lawlessness.

This conflicted with Maori custom, the authority of Maori Chiefs of cannibal times, of illiterate days, and the individualistic European idea of the European who had strayed out of the confines of his own laws and who had left behind the very lands from which he was nurtured.

It was this law, then, which was stretching out to follow him – the long fingernails of Queen Victoria, which she had attached to Governor WiHiam Hobson.

This was at a time when the Maori tribes were fighting fiercely among themselves.

There was no peace following the wars of Hongi Hika, Te Wherowhero, Te Waharoa and Te Rauparaha.

Guns and powder were the goods most desired by each tribe, when chiefly women were given away, and lands were sold.

This was at a time when lands were sold on a broad scale.

Europeans crowded to buy land for themselves in the Bay of Islands, Hauraki, Porirua and the South Island.

Guns, kegs of powder, blankets, tobacco and spirituous liquor were given in payment.

Many claims were made by various Europeans for the one piece of land sold to each of them by various Maori chiefs.

Where was the law in those times
to decide what was right?

The Maori did not have any government when the European first came to these islands.

There was no unified chiefly authority over man or land, or any one person to decide life or death, one who could be designated a King, a leader, or some other designation.

No, there was none. The people were still divided: Waikato, Ngati Haua, Te Arawa, Ngapuhi and tribe after tribe.

Within one tribe there were many divisions into sub-tribes, each under their own chief.

How could such an organisation
as a Government be established
under Maori custom?

There was without doubt Maori chieftainship, but it was limited in its scope to its sub-tribe, and even to only a family group.

The Maori did not have authority or a government which could make laws to govern the whole of the Maori race.

These were the reasons for the direct approach by Governor Hobson to the Maori chiefs, and for arranging for copies of the Treaty to be taken from end to end of each island, seeking to obtain the concurrence of chief after chief.

It has been mentioned earlier that 512 Maori chiefs subscribed their marks or their names to the Treaty of Waitangi.

I shall explain later the meaning of the term “Government” and of the words “chiefly authority”.

But let me say here that until the meaning of these words are clear, no one can consciously understand the full meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Another part of the Heading of the Treaty which requires our consideration is:

“Regarding with Her Royal favour – the Native Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand – are anxious to protect their just Rights and property and to secure to them the enjoyment of Peace and Good Order”.

These are the words which are embraced in the minds of the Maori people,

“protect their just Rights and property”.

Let us wait until the three covenants of the Treaty are fully explained to see the full significance of this thought in the mind of Queen Victoria.

Let us conclude here the explanations of the Heading of the Treaty.

It will be seen that the main purpose of the Government of Queen Victoria was for New Zealand, including the European and the Maori inhabitants, all men and the land, to come under the authority of a specific Government.

ARTICLE THE FIRST

These are the words of the First Article of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The First Article:

“The Chiefs assembled including Chiefs not present at the assembly hereby cede absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the Government of all of their lands”.

These are but a few words, but they indicate a complete cession.

This was the transfer by the Maori Chiefs to the Queen of England for ever of the Government of all their lands.

What was the thing they transferred?

What was the thing which they gave away so freely for ever?

It was the Government of their lands.

You are somewhat confused with the purport of those words

“their lands”

as being just a land matter.

No, their real meaning includes “their boundaries or territories”.

The English word in the English version of the Treaty: “territories”.

What is a “Government?”

[Ansell to Harawira: Please note...]

The English word is “Sovereignty”. The English word for such a personage as a King or a Queen is “Sovereign”.

This is the same as the Maori words “Ariki Tapairu” and is referred to as the absolute authority.

The “Sovereign Power” of the English rests with the King or Queen and his or her Council called Parliament.

This gives a clearer understanding of the term “Government” as used in this article of the Treaty.

That is, it is the absolute authority over the people which the article transmits into the hands of the Queen and Her Parliamentary Council.

It is Parliament which makes the laws for the people, for the land, for health, for sickness, for crime, for good order, and for everything pertaining to the well being of all throughout the world.

The Ministers of the Government, the officials, the Departments under their administration, the courts, the boards, the judges, the policemen, the inspectors, the surveyors, the schools, the hospitals – all other groups having authority as administrators, upholders of the law, and adjudicators – are all within the laws made by Parliament.

The laws made by Parliament affect all the people living on the face of this land – the land properly delineated and known as Aotearoa, the South Island and adjacent islands.

They are made for the humble and the great, for the ignorant and for the chiefs, without discrimination.

This first article of the Treaty of Waitangi carries out the wishes of the Queen

“to establish a settled form of Civil Government with a view to avert the evil consequences to the Maori people and to the Europeans living without laws”.

It is this article of the Treaty which leaves and embodies within these islands the Government of the Queen of England.

What was it that
the Maori Chiefs ceded?

This article states:

“They do absolutely cede to the Queen of England for ever the Government of their lands”.

Well, it has been said that the Maori did not have any Government. How can he cede something he did not have?

Let me explain again.

The explanation is in the meaning of the words

“Chiefly authority”.

It was this chiefly authority, held by each chief who subscribed his mark to the Treaty of Waitangi, that each chief ceded to the common weal and to Governor William Hobson, as an offering to Queen Victoria.

The sum total of the authorities of the Maori Chiefs ceded to the Queen was the Government of the Maori people.

Now what was
the chiefly authority?

What was the authority of the Maori chiefs at the time of the signing of the Treaty – to the people, to the land, and to the tribes under their separate authorities?

That was the time of Te Hapuku, of Te Rauparaha, of Te Rangihaeata, of Te Wherowhero, of Te Waharoa, of the great Te Heu Heu, of Kawiti, of Patuone, of Hone Heke, of Tupaea, of Te Amohau, of Te Pukuatua, of Mokonuiarangi, of Aporotanga, of Aopururangi, of Te Houkamau, of Te Kani-a-Takirau, of Te Potao-aute, of Te Eketuoterangi, and of the many others who have departed to “the realms of night – the terror of the land, the power over man”.

One could make lengthy additions to this part of our explanations.

Let us express in brief:

The chiefs gave away to the common weal the kiwi cloak, the dog skin cloak, ornamental cloaks to hang in Museums for Europeans to view, and to expound the virtues of the Maori.

“These were the treasures of the Maori while they had authority”: now the Maori looked on, sighed, recited and uttered “Farewell to the abode of death, to England the abode of pleasure”.

Having received these treasures, the Queen gave red blankets in return.

It is said these made up the greater part of the gifts laid by Governor Hobson, his officers and the missionaries before the Maori chiefs who signed the Treaty.

During the time when the Maori chiefs had authority and there was no authority of British law, the word of the chief was law to his tribe.

It was he who declared war, and he who sued for peace.

Here are some of the words of that period; “The fire burning yonder, go forth to put it out”.

A great number of the people thus disappeared – loss of man, loss of land.

The chief was separated from his daughter, who was used as an offering to the invaders to bring about peace.

It was the chiefs who bespoke the land and gave it away. They had the power even for life or death.

These were the powers they surrendered to the Queen.

This was the understanding of each tribe.

The main purport was the transferring of the authority of the Maori chiefs for making laws for their respective tribes and sub-tribes, under the Treaty of Waitangi, to the Queen of England for ever.

The embodiment today is Parliament – the Governor, his Ministers, the Members of the Lower House elected by the people, and the Members of the House of Lords appointed by the Governor – together they make the laws.

My dear old lady, this is part of the answer to your question “What is the Treaty of Waitangi?”

It was the First Article of the Treaty which transferred the chiefly authority of your ancestors, affecting you and future generations for ever.

This is the reason for the speeches in Parliament now in session in Wellington, making the laws, good laws, bad laws, laws for relief and harassing laws.

ARTICLE THE SECOND

This is the Second Article of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Second :

“The Queen of England confirms and guarantees, to the Chiefs and Tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the full possession of their lands, their homes and all their possessions, but the chiefs assembled and all other chiefs yield to the Queen the right to alienate such lands which the owners desire to dispose of at a price agreed upon between the owners and person or persons appointed by the Queen to purchase on her behalf”.

I said at the beginning of my explanations that the Maori version was not a good translation of the English terms in the Treaty. There were small parts left out.

Young students from among you can see for yourselves the English version of the Second Article of the Treaty as follows:

______________________________

– STOP PRESS –

HOBSON’S FINAL DRAFT FOUND

This is Ansell cutting in.

We now need to take a break from Ngata’s explanation to tell you about an amazing discovery that Sir Apirana never lived to see.

But first, let me start with a one-question quiz.

I want to show you two English wordings of the Treaty.

One of them is regarded as the official English Treaty. The other is dismissed as irrelevant.

Obviously, only one of these can be the real English wording — the one approved by Hobson.

Which is the right wording?

I want you to have a look at them both.

Then ask yourself: Which one is more likely to have been the source of the Maori Tiriti (the one that Ngata has helpfully translated into English)?

Here again is that Anglicised Maori version of Article the Second, so you can read them one after the other:

“The Queen of England confirms and guarantees, to the Chiefs and Tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the full possession of their lands, their homes and all their possessions, but the chiefs assembled and all other chiefs yield to the Queen the right to alienate such lands which the owners desire to dispose of at a price agreed upon between the owners and person or persons appointed by the Queen to purchase on her behalf”.

(78 words)

OK. Now… which of the following two English versions do you think was the more likely source of the above words? Was it this one (A):

“The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs & tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation and the other chiefs grant to the Queen the exclusive right of purchasing such land as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as shall be agreed upon between them and the persons appointed by the Queen to purchase from them”.

(82 words)

Or this one (B):

“Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand, and to the respective families and individuals thereof, the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates, Forests, Fisheries, and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess, so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the Individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate, at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf”.

(121 words)

And the winner is…

If you said B, then congratulations!

You agree with the Waitangi Tribunal — the body whose word on all Treaty matters is final, at least according to your government.

(Oh, and you also agree with just about all government-paid professional historians. Well done you!)

If, on the other hand, you said that A — the 82 word first version — was a better match for the 78 word Tiriti than the 121 word version, then bad luck

For coming to that merely logical conclusion, I’m sorry to say you only agree with me, and my team of enthusiastic amateurs (including nine authors of over 30 books on the Treaty).

You will, of course, have noted, along with the similar word count, that both the English translation of the Maori version and version A contain the words “all the people of New Zealand”.

While the Official English version (version B) says the Treaty is with Maori only.

You will also have been unable to find the words ‘Forests’ or ‘Fisheries’ in either the Maori Tiriti or version A.

OK, so I know what you’re thinking…

What is this version A?

And why can’t the government, its tame historians, or the Waitangi Tribunal, acknowledge what you and I can plainly see with our untrained eyes?

Why do I even mention this rogue almost-identical version, when all the ‘right’ people only acknowledge the flowery and totally dissimilar one?

To show the depths to which the elites will sink to defraud you of the truth, that’s why.

So what is version A?

And why does sensible Sir Apirana make no mention of it in his — I hope you agree — brilliant explanation?

Because he’d been dead for 39 years when it was found.

Littlewood, big news

The year was 1989 – 149 years after the signing of the Treaty.

The place was Pukekohe, at the home of John and Beryl Littlewood.

The couple were sorting through the belongings of their ancestor Henry Littlewood.

Henry had been a Treaty-era lawyer friend of the then-US Consul James Clendon.

(Why is the Clendon link important? Because it was at his home in Okiato that Hobson’s final English draft of the Treaty was probably written.)

And there among Henry Littlewood’s stuff was an old envelope with some writing on the back.

And the writing said: ‘Treaty of Waitangi’.

And inside was a draft of the Treaty dated ‘Feb. 4th’ — the very date that the government’s tame historians had always known a final draft had been written, if only they could find the darned thing.

The missing link!

Remember the Maori Tiriti was signed on February 6th, having first been read to the chiefs on February 5th.

But before that, it had to be translated — by Rev. Henry Williams and his son Edward — from the English draft that William Hobson approved and James Busby wrote down.

This translation was done through the night of February the 4th.

The final English draft used for that translation was penned in a meeting on the 4th — the date on the Littlewood document.

Clearly — to everyone except the government and its tame historians — this (version A) was…

Hobson’s final draft

And when the tame historians found out about it, they took a great deal of interest in it.

They were particularly interested in how they were going to cover it up, since it was a huge embarrassment to their political masters.

This was 1989, remember — when Geoffrey Palmer was busy inventing a totally new Treaty, a ‘partnership’ complete with ‘principles’.

He would have been in no mood to have the public exposed to the source of the real one.

Especially one which was a dead ringer for the Maori Tiriti, which said the Queen would protect all New Zealanders, and which made no mention of Maori owning forests and fisheries — which the government would soon be giving back to them.

It was even more embarrassing when handwriting expert Dr Phil Parkinson confirmed a decade later who had written the Littlewood document.

Why, the scribe was none other than the former British Resident and Hobson’s trusty helper…

…James Busby!

(As Busby had always maintained.)

The coverup begins

So how did the tame historians manage to discredit the Littlewood Treaty (AKA the Hobson/Busby Final Draft)?

The best arguments these highly intelligent academics could come up with were:

“It wasn’t signed!”

Now why would they expect to see chiefly signatures on a draft which was meant for the translator’s eyes only? Hmmm?

“Busby must have got the date wrong!”

Really?

A professional bureaucrat making such a basic blunder in the course of preparing his nation’s founding document?

I would have thought such a man would have been a stickler for accuracy, wouldn’t you?

Now granted, he did spell ‘sovereignty’ without the first ‘e’. But do bad spellers necessarily make bad daters?

What do you think?

I think the bureaucrats of the Victorian era were a good deal more honest and accurate than many of those of the ‘Treatygate’ era today.

The fake becomes official

Before we return to Ngata’s explanation, I should deal with one other question that may be niggling you:

“How did that flowery version B become our Official English Treaty?”

Good question. And the answer is that Hobson’s Final English Draft had gone missing, so people used his secretary’s flowery and unauthorised version to fill the vacuum.

Hobson had made it clear prior to succumbing to illness that the only Treaty that counted was the Maori one.

These are his exact words:

“The treaty which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840, by 52 chiefs, 26 of whom were of the federation, and formed a majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence. This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”.

So no one gave much thought to the draft from which Te Tiriti had been translated. That wound up in the possession of Clendon’s lawyer Littlewood, and stayed in his family until found in 1989.

So what is version B? Who wrote it? And why is it regarded as official?

It’s like this.

Freeman’s folly

Hobson had a third-rate secretary called James Freeman.

Freeman was by all accounts a pompous twit, from Eton.

Hobson’s boss, Governor Gipps of New South Wales, had palmed him off on to Hobson and was glad to be rid of him.

Bear in mind that Hobson was sick pretty much the whole time he was in New Zealand, where he died in 1842.

And during his various illnesses, his staff, like Freeman, and helpers, like Busby, did their best to fill in for him.

Freeman’s contribution to New Zealand history was to realise that he needed a version of the Treaty to send back to England, so Queen Victoria and the Colonial Office could understand what the Maori had signed up to.

And being a pompous twit, he wasn’t about to send Her Majesty just any old plain English version.

He wanted something more… majestic.

So he made one up.

In the Royal style

He sifted through the numerous Treaty drafts that had been penned and binned by Hobson and Busby.

And he cobbled together an English version which he thought would be fit for the up-market eyes of Queen Vic.

And in that ‘Royal Style’ version, he completely missed the need to include non-Maori in the equation (“all the people of New Zealand”).

This late addition may have been something that Clendon had alerted Hobson to the need for, to protect American whaling businesses.

In his fantasy Treaty, Freeman was happy to award Maori ownership of forests and fisheries.

The Maori version did not.

Treatygaters seize on accidental signing

So why has Freeman’s version been taken so seriously, for so long?

Because of a signing ceremony that took place at Kawhia later in 1840.

So many chiefs wanted to sign that they ran out of room on the Maori Tiriti. So they had to use whatever they could find to accommodate the overflow.

The official who was supposed to bring the right papers was late, but someone had a copy of Freeman’s flowery fantasy.

And so it was that the Treatygaters of today are able to point to a signed English version of the Treaty of Waitangi and say:

“See, it’s signed, so it must be official!”

And that was enough for our ever-helpful government to enshrine Freeman’s fantasy Treaty as the Official English Treaty for the purposes of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

Maori prefer the English? Huh?

You may have noticed that clever Maori like members of the Waitangi Tribunal and their iwi clients prefer Freeman’s Official English Treaty to the Maori version.

Why would that be?

Because the Maori version is actually much tougher on Maori.

This is why you get Maori, like my young Close Up adversary Morgan Godfery, being strangely admiring of the English version, when you’d think they’d be more comfortable with the Te Reo.

In another post, I’ll show you the whole of the Littlewood/Final Draft side-by-side with Ngata’s English translation of the Maori.

You’ll see what a perfect match it is, and how dishonest it is of the government to persist with the absurd notion that Freeman’s draft is in any way ‘official’.

Now back to you, Sir Apirana, and thank you for your patience…

______________________________

NGATA’S EXPLANATION CONTINUES…

Now it will be seen there are several words in the English version which were not adequately rendered into the Maori language.

This is my translation:

“Ko te Kuini o Ingarangi ka whakapumau, ka whakaoati kia whakatuturutia ki nga Rangatira, ki nga Hapu o Niu Tireni, a ki ia whanau, ki ia tangata ranei o ratou, te mana te rangatiratanga o o ratou whenua, o o ratou ngahere, o o ratou taunga-ika, o era atu taonga ranei a ratou, a ia tangata ranei o ratou mo te wa e hiahia ai ratou ki te pupuri i aua mea; Oti ia e whakaae ana nga Rangatira o te Whakaminenga, me era atu rangatira katoa ki te tuku atu ki te Kuini i te mana motuhake ki te hoko i nga wahi whenua e hiahiatia ana e nga tangata no ratou aua whenua kia hokona, mo nga um e whakaritea i waenganui i nga tangata no ratou aua whenua me nga tangata e whakaritea e te Kuini hei kai hoko mana”.

This is the Article from which stems the matters which are discussed throughout the maraes in regard to the Treaty of Waitangi.

When a bad law is made it is said to contravene the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Government confiscates the land, it is said this is wrong because it contravenes the guarantee of the Queen under this Article of the Treaty.

This has given rise to wishful thinking on the part of many Maori groups, for the formation of Absolute Maori Authorities, variously called Kotahitanga (United Group), Kauhanganui (Open Forum), Maori Parliament, or other designations.

All this wishful thinking goes back to this Article in the Treaty.

Indeed these ideas were due to confusion as the authority of the Maori was set aside for ever by the First Article of the Treaty.

What is this authority,
this sovereignty that is referred
to in the Second Article?

It is quite clear, the right of a Maori to his land, to his property, to his individual right to such possessions whereby he could declare,

“This is my land, there are the boundaries, descended from my ancestor so and so, or conquered by him, or as the first occupier, or so and so gave it to him, or it had been occupied by his descendants down to me.

“These properties are mine, this canoe, that taiaha (combination spear and club), that greenstone patu (club), that kumara (sweet potato) pit, that cultivation.

“These things are mine and do not belong to anyone else”.

At the time of the Treaty, both islands were widely inhabited by Maori tribes.

They had partitioned all the lands, and had named all the various parts.

At the time of the Treaty, the chiefs and tribes were disputing among themselves the titles and the boundaries between their lands.

They fought with guns, with patu (clubs), to take by conquest the lands of the others, or to bar the way of others intent on conquest.

The Queen did not do anything to take away the rights of the Maori over his lands. Instead she made the ownership permanent and truly established.

This is the reason, dear old lady, you appear before the Maori Land Court to show your rights – whether of land not yet clothed with title, or by long occupation – when you related the trails, the fern root hills, the tawhara (young shoots of kiekie) swamps or other token and relics of your ancestors.

There are two main provisions in this article of the Treaty.

They are:

The permanent establishment to the Maori of title to his land and his property.
The giving of the right to the Queen to acquire Maori land.

I shall first explain the provisions affecting Maori land.

You are all fully aware of our rights to land.

It is not just now that disputes have arisen between Maori and Maori over land.

“Is it mine or is it yours?” and claims would go back to the realms of darkness and to ancient ancestral rights.

This is what Sir William Martin, Chief Judge of the Supreme Court, said some time ago in regard to the rights over Maori land:

“From what I have seen the rights of the Maori affected the whole face of the land.

“There is not a part unaffected by the claims of the Maori people except those parts which have been sold by them.

“I have never seen or heard of any part which is not affected by the claims of the Maori people.

“There have been many disputes among themselves as to their rights but no one would be mistaken that the matter under dispute would be in regard to land”.

Now having established under this article of the Treaty the rights of the Maori, the law poses a question to the Maori:

“Now, to whom does this land belong?”

The reply would be noisy. There would be calls from this one, calls from that one.

Blood would be spilt. That was Waitara. The repercussions spread to Waikato, and the fire spread to the far ends of Aotearoa (North Island).

The chiefs arose and began selling the lands – whether it was their own or someone else’s.

This was selling without proper title.

The Court had not enquired into the ownership of the land that had been sold.

There was Heretaunga (Hawkes Bay), Wairarapa, Otaki – and many other lands sold before the Maori Land Court sat in any part of these islands.

Owing to the many problems which arose, it was considered necessary to appoint an authoritative body to enquire and to decide the rights of Maori claimants to their lands.

Parliament then enacted the Maori Land Act of the year 1862.

This is what was stated by Section 5 of that Act :

“The Governor shall from time to time have the right to set up a court to enquire and to decide who are the Maori people entitled under Maori custom to the Maori lands, to apportion their interests in such land, and issue certificates of Title to them for such lands”.

This was the beginning of the Maori Land Court as it is today.

Until it had adjudicated upon lands not clothed with title, and had given judgement, it would carry out the provisions of the Second Article of the Treaty of Waitangi, which established to us our Maori rights to our lands.

The part that is not clear of this portion of the Second Article to the Treaty is in regard to fishing grounds.

This part should include the lakes. That is, fresh water lakes, mud flats, pipi (cockle) beds and oyster rocks.

As to fishing grounds, they are out in the open sea, or at the mouths of rivers.

Parliament and the Courts have been side stepping these matters.

In some cases the Courts have given judgement – that is, in regard to oyster rocks – and the Maori people have been judged to be in the wrong.

The case for the fresh water lakes is at present being considered.

I shall hold up my explanations of these matters until the Third Article of the Treaty.

In regard to that part of this Article of the Treaty affecting the acquisition by the Queen…

…its main purpose is to confine to the Crown only the right to acquire Maori lands – subject to the price being properly arranged between the Maori owners of the land and the Crown Purchase Officer.

This has been a matter which successive Governments have greatly disputed, in the past and up to the present.

As each Government is elected, it is mooted that purchases of Maori land should be curtailed, and for all purchases to be confined to the Crown.

Another Government is elected, and it is mooted that purchases of Maori land should be permitted to enable any European or anybody else to purchase.

This was the law from 1862 down to the year 1892.

In the year 1892, acquisitions were confined to the Crown only.

When the Government wanted to acquire a block of land, a prohibition was placed on the land. It was gazetted in the same way as is being done by the present Government.

In the year 1900, there was complete prohibition of purchases by the Crown.

In the year 1905, purchases by the Crown began again in various parts of the island.

And in 1909, purchases by the Crown and Europeans greatly increased.

In the year 1913, the present Government enacted the present law, which now directs sales to the Crown and confines the sales of land to the Crown only.

This takes it back to the position in the year 1892.

That was the basis of the Treaty of Waitangi.

We object to such purchases, as it restricts the Maori owner to the low price offered by the Crown.

It also restricts the land owner in doing what he wishes to do with his land, as he has to wait for very long periods until the Crown has fully bought up the interests of all the willing sellers before it applies for partition of the interests it has acquired.

The objections to these oppressive measures are fully justified. But the blame cannot be placed on the Treaty of Waitangi, which laid down this basis.

These, dear old lady, are the main features of this part of the Treaty of Waitangi setting forth the conditions affecting these islands, the Maori Land Court and its activities, the purchases by the Crown which are biting into the land.

These are the words of Nopera Panakareao, a Chief of the Rarawa, when a copy of the Treaty reached Kaitaia for Te Rarawa and Aupouri Tribes to sign:

“It is the shadow of the land which had been given to the Queen while the soil remains.”

These are very wise words, an old time saying.

The saying of the elderly chief has combined the words of the First Article with those of the Second Article of the Treaty.

It is the shadow – that is, the main authority covering the land.

It is the power to make laws.

The power to say:

“This group shall adjudicate, that authority should see that the purchase is right, while that one leads the individual through the many intricacies of the law.”

That was the shadow ceded to the Queen by the First Article of the Treaty.

As for the soil, it is yours. It is mine, inherited from our ancestors.

It was the Second Article which firmly established this to the Maori people.

ARTICLE THE THIRD

This is the Third Article of the Treaty:

“In consideration thereof, Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her Royal Protection, and imparts to them all the rights and privileges of British subjects”.

This article explains what Her Majesty the Queen gives in return for what the Maori Chiefs have ceded to Her Majesty’s Government.

Here is the explanation.

The Queen of England extends to the Maori people of New Zealand Her Royal protection.
She imparts to them all the rights and privileges of British subjects.

These are very important and formidable words.

The first part is that all the Maori people would receive protection.

Looking beyond the shores of New Zealand, we find that it was through the Queen and her descendants, through their prestige and might, that we have been protected against invasion by foreign powers.

Namely the French in their time, when they attempted to take the South Island, and had actually settled at Akaroa.

And after that came the Russians – their attempts to conquer us were staved off.

And only yesterday we faced up to the Germans, and only after a bitter struggle were they defeated.

Who knows? – we may have to face up to the Japanese. [Ngata wrote this nineteen years before Pearl Harbour.]

The might of England has protected us. The King has given us his protection.

When we look at ourselves, we realise the full significance of this protection.

The Treaty found us in the throes of cannibalism. That was murder, a crime punishable by death – be the murderer rich or poor.

That was the British law, which became law for the Maori under the provisions of the second part of the above Third Article:

“and imparts to them all the rights and privileges of British subjects”.

The Treaty found the strong committing outrageous acts against the weak, the chiefs against the commoner, the Pakeha against the Maori.

And such acts were breaches of the law punishable by imprisonment with hard labour, according to the British code of law adopted as the law for both the Pakeha and the Maori under the provisions of

“and imparts to them all the rights and privileges of British subjects”.

British law, as provided by the Queen, did not prevent crimes. Crimes were committed.

There were murders. There were thefts. There were libels and defamations, and other crimes conceived by the human mind.

However, very few escaped the strong arm of the law.

The second part of the Article

“and imparts to them (that is, to all the Maori people of New Zealand) all the rights and privileges of British subjects”

is the most important part of the Treaty of Waitangi.

This is the part that impresses the Maori people most, and a part overlooked by the advocates of the Maori people in their efforts to interpret the Treaty in years gone by.

This Article represents the greatest benefit bestowed upon the Maori people by Her Majesty the Queen.

It is in a great measure to balance up what the Maori people had given her under the provisions of Article One of the Treaty.

Here is a brief explanation.

This Third Article states that the Maori and Pakeha are equal before the Law.

That is, they are to share the rights and privileges of British subjects.

When the Supreme Court was established in New Zealand, it declared it was the Treaty of Waitangi under the provisions of Article Three, under discussion, which provided the basis for the administration of British Justice as affecting New Zealand conditions of these times.

Now, it is not only the laws made by Parliament that are effective. There are some laws that issue from decisions of Courts of Law.

There are some which have originated from British Law and from the Treaty of Waitangi, and have become law here in New Zealand.

Yes, British Law has been the greatest benefit bestowed by the Queen on the Maori people.

My dear old lady, perhaps, you are not aware that during every hour of the day while you are awake, and during every hour of the night while you are asleep, there are one hundred laws looking after you.

They refer to your way of life, your travels, your hours of sleep, your hours awake, your occupation, and what you say.

Of these one hundred laws, perhaps ninety five of them apply equally to your Pakeha friends, and perhaps five differentiate.

The law pertaining to crimes, the law pertaining to debts, law pertaining to property (except land), and law pertaining to slander, are the same.

There is one law for Maori and for Pakeha. The Treaty of Waitangi ordained it so.

The laws that differentiate the Maori from the Pakeha are the laws pertaining:

Maori representation in Parliament.
Maori Lands.
Liquor.

[Since Sir Apirana wrote this, legal amendments, especially in the Licensing Amendment Act of 1948, have almost entirely removed the differentiation between Maori and Pakeha in this matter (Liquor).]

The Maori people have their own special representatives in Parliament, elected only by the Maori people.

The reasons for this special provision were twofold:

Maori problems had their own peculiarities, and
The Maori people were ignorant of most things pertaining to the Pakeha way of life in those days.

My own opinion, however, is that the reason for the four Maori Members was the fear on the part of the Pakeha that, as Maori and Pakeha populations in these islands were very much on a parity, and that if the Maori people were given the right to vote with the Europeans, there was a possibility many more Maori Members would be elected to Parliament.

However, Maori representation in Parliament is one of the few remaining special provisions for the Maori people.

The laws pertaining to Maori lands are entirely different from the laws pertaining to European lands. Matters for decision are ownership of lands, and who should succeed to deceased owners.

There were no wills, the nearest equivalent being a dying request.

There were many restrictions pertaining to the sale, to the leasing and mortgaging of Maori land, which do not pertain to European lands.

The differences in regard to Crown purchases have already been explained.

In times past, rates were not levied on Maori lands. This was not because of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Likewise, in days gone by Maori lands were not affected by taxation. And again, it was not because of any provisions in the Treaty.

The Treaty had provided for

“all the rights and privileges of British subjects”.

If the law had adhered to the spirit of the Treaty, Maori land would have borne the burden of rates and taxation long ago.

It was in the year 1894 that Maori lands were subjected to rates, and then it was half of the rate.

It was not until 1910 that full rates as for European lands were levied.

1. It was only in the year 1893 that Maori lands were taxed.

It was a light tax, half of the tax payable by the Pakeha. However, only leasehold Maori lands were taxable.

It was in the year 1917 that a heavier tax was levied on leased Maori land equivalent to half the rate of taxation on European lands.

2. At present, if the levies on our lands were in accordance with all that the law provides these would not be anywhere near as heavy as what are levied on Pakeha lands.

Maori lands not clothed with title cannot be charged with rates.

County Councils have very devious procedures to follow to put a charge on Maori land for non-payment of rates.

Only Maori lands under lease were subject to taxes, and these at half the amount charged against European lands.

All other Maori lands that were not under lease, being farmed and occupied by the Maori owners, and Pa areas were not affected by taxation.

3. Various laws made it possible to sidestep many of the levies which should have affected our lands in accordance with the words of the Treaty “all the rights and privileges of British subjects”.

Could it be the laws were wrong and were contravening the Treaty?

To all those who are agitating under the Treaty for remedies for our grievances, I say:

“Be careful, lest you awaken the legal experts of the Pakeha people, who will say:

‘Let them have what they are asking for. Let the purport of the Treaty be exercised to the very end: Put the same levies on the Maori as are levied on the Pakeha’.”

Why the vacillation of Parliament, the maker of the laws?

Why have not rates and taxes been levied on Maori land over the fifty years since the Treaty, namely up to the year 1893?

And why, after that, was only half the burden carried by the Pakeha levied on the Maori land?

The Pakeha authorities could see the Maori back could not carry the burden, because of inexperience and general confusion in his own affairs.

And for this reason the impact of this part of Pakeha law was to be made gradual.

“A bird cannot fly without feathers”.

This is a saying of the Maori.

The Pakeha could similarly say to us:

“Rating is the lifeline of the roads, which you and your descendants use. It is the lifeline of our country – there are the railways, schools, hospitals and post offices.”

We cannot grasp the Treaty as a shield to use against rating and taxation. It is the leniency of the law which has spared us.

We are conversant with the law pertaining to liquor.

Liquor and the Bible came to this country together. If anything, liquor arrived here slightly ahead of the Bible.

There would have been no special liquor laws for the Maori if only the Maori had consumed liquor wisely.

However, because of the abuse – its use as a lubricant to facilitate land sales, its use to mentally incapacitate the Chiefs so that they wasted their substance, and its use for bragging on the maraes – the wise law makers were able to decide for themselves and to say:

“Dear Sirs: our beverage is not elevating these people. They are strangers to it. They are still in their infancy.

“Let us put a barrier against the consumption of liquor.

“Let us prohibit some Maori areas.

“Let us prohibit the consumption by the womenfolk.

“Let us prohibit everywhere except on licensed premises, and prohibit the consumption on the maraes”.

The day may come when these restrictions can be lifted – when the Maori has become accustomed to liquor, when his bloodstream can counter the fiery effect of liquor.

The Pakeha may, on the other hand, say:

“Let us prohibit altogether the consumption of liquor in New Zealand.”

Let me end here my general explanations of this Article of the Treaty.

Let me issue a word of warning to those who are in the habit of bandying the name of the Treaty around:

Be very careful of this portion of the Treaty, lest it be made the means of incurring certain liabilities under the law, which we do not know now, and which today are being borne only by the Pakeha.

If we suffer through being Europeanised too quickly, and if we can gain some respite by a gradual acceptance of Pakeha ideas, then let those parts of the Treaty sleep on peacefully.

THE CONFLICTING PARTS

In my explanations about Article Two of the Treaty, I did say that there was one part of that Article which was still not quite clear:

The part about the fishing grounds, together with the fresh water lakes, the mud flats, pipi beds and oyster rocks.

The reason I am making special mention of these specific matters is that there seems to be some difficulty or conflict be tween Articles Two and Three of the Treaty.

Article Two states that

“The Treaty guarantees to the Maori people their rights and possessions to their lands, their forests and their fisheries.”

There is no doubt about the lands and forests.

But the part in doubt is that which concerns the lakes situated amidst all the land: the mudflats.

That is, the lands which become submerged by sea water at high tide.

To the Maori, these lands belong to him. That is why he considers his rights to these should be established under Article Two of the Treaty.

However, I have already explained above that Article Three of the Treaty gave to New Zealand British laws which became effective on the signing of the Treaty, and conform with

“all the rights and privileges of British Subjects”.

British law states that the sea from high water mark to a point three miles out belongs to the Crown.

The mudflats, the pipi beds, the oyster rocks and the fishing grounds are all below high water mark.

These are conflicting points that have been left in doubt.

The voice of Parliament has in no way indicated any legislation which would establish in us ownership of these possessions of our ancestors.

The Arawa case concerning its fresh water lakes is still before the Courts, and whether it will be decided there remains to be seen.

The case might very well be settled out of Court between the people and the Government. I will not say much about that here.

The Supreme Court has, however, given its decision that the Arawa people proceed with their claim through the Maori Land Court.

CONFISCATED LANDS

In conclusion, I would just like to say a word about the lands that were confiscated by past Governments.

Some have said that these confiscations were wrong, and that they contravened the Articles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty and the 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 cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.

The objections should be made in the light of the suffering of some of the tribes by reason of the confiscation of their lands.

The wrongs were done by others, while lands belonging to others were confiscated.

Consequently, many tribes suffered through having no lands.

Some tribes were too severely punished. It was from these objections that earnest supplications were made to Ministers, or by way of petitions to Parliament.

While the Government could not defend itself under the provisions of the Treaty, Governments have used the Treaty as a shield against these supplications and claims.

So my friend Bennett, will you please pass on to the dear old lady the answer to her short questions.

I am afraid the explanations have been somewhat lengthy. It could have been quite short if I had just stated the Treaty of Waitangi created Parliament to make laws.

The Treaty has given us the Maori Land Court with all its activities.

The Treaty confirmed Government purchases of lands, which is still being done, and it also confirmed past confiscations.

The Treaty sanctioned the levying of rates and taxes on Maori lands. It made the one law for the Maori and the Pakeha.

If you think these things are wrong and bad, then blame our ancestors who gave away their rights in the days when they were powerful.

____________________________________________

Note: Ngata wrote the above in 1922.

COMING SOON: a full side-by-side comparison of Ngata’s English translation of the Maori Tiriti with Hobson’s Final Draft, discovered in 1989 and hushed up ever since by the government’s tame historians.

(Actually, after pressure from John Littlewood, they were finally forced to display it at National Achives.

But they refuse to acknowledge that it is the Final Draft, dismissing it as just another of Busby’s many scratchings.

And they keep the date — ‘Feb.4th 1840′ — face-down.

Ask them to turn it over and see what they say!)

Published in:

on April 29, 2012 at 12:07 pm Comments (34)

Don’t be cowed by the ‘Racist’ trick

I get this cowardly trick played on me a lot. It’s important we treat it with the contempt it deserves.

Sorry if my last post came through incomplete. I pressed the Publish button instead of Save.

All fixed now.

Published in:

Maorification

on April 27, 2012 at 7:39 pm Comments (50)

My latest Close Up ambush

Incensed by the Popata brothers’ chillingly thuggish display on Monday night, I rang Close Up first thing Tuesday and offered to provide some push-back.

Next thing you know, I’m being flown to Auckland for a debate with Hone Harawira and the supposedly ‘moderate’ young Maori blogger Morgan Godfery.

Why is it that the state broadcaster always feels the need to outnumber me two-to-one with lefties — who inevitably and rather tiresomely then label me an extreme right-winger, racist or liar.

Last time it was Willie Jackson and Paul Spoonley, this time Hone and Morgan.

Morgan seemed a pleasant chap, who has done extraordinarily well to become a spokesman for the Maori moderati at the tender age of 20.

After the show, we chatted amicably for two hours, sharing a taxi, dinner and plane ride back to Wellington.

Then he wrote this.

(Note my various replies in the comments section.)

There was a time when being flayed alive by blog commenters used to upset me.

Now I just smile and think of all the intelligent readers they’re alienating by responding to facts with abuse.

Morgan will learn this lesson in due course.

But back to Close Up.

Sadly, Hone couldn’t be with us in person, as he was hikoiing in Kaitaia.

I found his performance rather subdued compared with my experience last year with the foaming fool Jackson.

(Maybe Hone was knackered after a hard day’s hikoiing. Or maybe it was a deliberate strategy to differentiate himself from his bully boy proteges.)

My strategy was twofold:

To seed the phrase Colourblind State into the national conversation.
To alert the public to the upcoming Constitutional Review, and the Maori Party’s agenda to impose a Bolivian-style animist/communist/racist constitution.

The more the Lefties mock me for suggesting this wacky-sounding plan (the actual declared agenda of Marxists like Margaret Mutu and Nin Thomas), the less comfortable they’re going to feel promoting it.

I also wanted to confront Maori with their extraordinarily violent past, not for the sheer joy of causing offence (despite undoubtedly doing so), but to wake them up to the real source of their present violence.

Namely: their forefathers, not mine.

The sad truth is that Maori in 1840 were 42 warring, cannibal, communist, slave-owning dictatorships.

The British did not destroy them, as we’ve been led to believe.

In fact, they saved them from blasting and hacking themselves to extinction.

(Somewhere between 20,000 and 60,000 Maori — up to half the race — were killed in the Musket Wars of the 1820s and 30s, compared with about 2,000 in the Sovereignty Wars of the 1860s.)

Today, thanks to inter-breeding, Christianity and British law, they’ve shed most of those violent tendencies, but (understandably) not all.

All peoples, perhaps bar the Moriori, have had to confront a brutal past, very much including Europeans.

Thanks to Christianity (once they’d got through their witch-burning phase), Europeans gave up the bloodlust, and Maori followed suit when they became equal members of the British Empire.

[A commenter has pointed out that my claim that Europeans have renounced violence is not entirely plausible, given the many wars that have been waged on that continent since 1840.

But I'm talking about daily life, which, I hope even he will agree, is less violent than it used to be.]

When Hone and Morgan claim that until Maori achieve the same health, wealth and homicide rates as Pakeha they’ll need more and more Pakeha money, they’re arguing from a position of greed, not logic.

After all, as all Maori radicals seem strangely happy to highlight, Maori are still at the bottom of every social statistic.

Still at rock bottom — after being showered with billions of dollars of benefits, and up to five full and final Treaty settlements.

Clearly, more money is not the answer.

Could that be, I wonder, because too much of it is going to feather the nests of their millionaire leaders?

Whatever, it’s time we turned off the tap and asked Maori to look inward for the answers, not outwards.

It’s time they followed their Achievers, not these Grievers.

I couldn’t get all of these messages across in the debate, but I hope I showed that not all New Zealanders are prepared to be cowed by the standover tactics of wide boys and thugs.

As I said on Close Up, our fathers and grandfathers (including those in the Maori Battalion) went to war for this country.

They paid for their patriotism with their blood.

Thousands more, Maori and Pakeha, paid with their lives.

Have we become so feeble that we’re prepared to surrender this vibrant nation that our forebears clawed from raw bush, with blood, brains, sweat, tears and guts, to a violent minority of a decent minority, for fear of being called a name?

Published in:

on April 27, 2012 at 3:21 pm Comments (13)

Time for a Colourblind State

Last night’s Close Up piece on Hone Harawira’s militant nephew shows what happens when a government pursues a policy of endless appeasement.

It’s time this chamber of Chamberlains started running New Zealand as though it were a democracy.

I propose to ensure it does this by launching a petition for a referendum on a colourblind state – a referendum that it can ill afford to ignore.

To ensure that the government listens to the will of the people, I’m fundraising for a major public education campaign to expose the 40-year brainwashing campaign that has denied New Zealanders their right to know the truth about Crown-Maori history.

I’ve spent the past year doing little else but studying this history, and believe me it is a very different history from the one we’ve been forcefed by our schools, universities, politicians and media.

Helping me prepare for this campaign have been nine authors who between them have written over 30 books on this subject.

Very soon I’ll be setting up a site where you can read the documents I have read. Prepare to be amazed – and enraged.

One of these documents is Governor Hobson’s final English draft of the Treaty, missing for 149 years and found in 1989 – but covered up by an embarrassed government and minimised by its tame historians.

Why?

Because, like the Maori ‘Tiriti’ into which it was translated, it makes no mention of Maori owning forest and fisheries, and makes it clear that the Treaty was with all the people of New Zealand, including settlers.

Tonight it’s my turn to appear on Close Up — with Hone Harawira and another Maori, Morgan Godfery.

(I’m getting used to these two-on-one ambushes, but will do my best to get a word in edgeways.)

More on the campaign when I return from Auckland.

If you’d like to donate to the very considerable costs of a high-profile advertising campaign, please do so here.

Before long, there will be a trust, Facebook page and website. But the first step is fundraising.

Published in:

on April 24, 2012 at 8:00 pm Comments (30)

Non-iwi Kiwis: don’t count on Coddington

Despairing at the racial bias of the Constitutional Advisory Panel, I emailed the one panellist I thought I could count on to stand up for the rights of the 85% of New Zealanders who are not Maori.

(And also, I hope, a large number of those who are.)

That panellist was Deborah Coddington.

I now realise I was wrong. I now realise that Deborah, like most, if not all, of the others, has been chosen for her pro-Maori bias.

_______________________________________________

My first email to Deborah:

From: John Ansell
Sent: Thursday, 5 January 2012 9:29 p.m.
To: Deborah Coddington
Subject: Will you stick up for non-Maori?

Hi Deborah,

For some time now I’ve been receiving high-quality info that amounts to a massive coverup of the truth about the Treaty of Waitangi and subsequent actions by a succession of governments, academics and media.

You may be familiar with some of the misinformation that is out there.

I note that you’re also on the Constitutional Advisory Panel.

Now the very fact that Pita Sharples has allowed you on this grossly unrepresentative panel suggests that you may have some pro-Maori bias that I’m not aware of.

Most, if not all, of the other non-Maori panellists seem to, and of course all of the Maori.

I do recall you taking issue with Don Brash’s assertion that there are no longer any full-blooded Maori. I don’t suggest that that alone amounts to a bias, however the emotion behind the comment did make me wonder.

In the unlikely event that you are there as a ‘wet in dry’s clothing’, then I despair that no one on that panel will speak for the 85% of New Zealanders who are not Maori.

But I hope you will.

I hope you will stand up against the slurs, lies and exaggerations that have been levelled against our forefathers by opportunistic neo-Maoris (really EuroMaoris) and their treacherous ‘make-believe Maori’ collaborators, including the Minister of Treaty Settlements/Minister of Maori Affairs/Attorney-General.

Whatever you may think, I am not a venomous Maori-hater, I just find their leaders’ arrogance and lack of gratitude for the immense benefits they have received from British colonisation breathtaking.

I feel inclined to stick up for the Brits, who far from being brutal oppressors were the most compassionate colonisers ever.

Like the Americans who saved us from the Japanese, the 19th century Brits may not have been perfect, but they quite literally saved the Maori from extinction at the hands of fellow Maori.

Is that not worth a smidgen of appreciation?

On behalf of the much-maligned British (who Maori did not lift a finger to help in building modern New Zealand) I am keen to help to expose the truth — a most unfashionable concept in today’s New Zealand.

If you share that concern, would you be interested in being emailed the evidence I’ve been sent?

This includes:

Evidence of Waitangi Tribunal researchers doctoring their evidence to suit their political masters under threat of non-payment;

Evidence that the government is deliberately using the wrong version of the Treaty of Waitangi, after the correct English draft was discovered in 1989 (and does not mention forests and fisheries, but does make it clear that the Treaty was with ‘all the people of New Zealand’, not just Maori);

Evidence that it was Maori who first breached the Treaty in the 1860s, and that the Crown’s response was entirely justified against a foe that wanted to drive them into the sea (or in the case of Wiremu Tamihana, butcher every man, woman and child in Auckland) — and a positively mild response compared with the slaughtering and cannibalising that would have been the result had the Maoris won the wars;

Evidence of all Treaty grievances having been settled fully and finally in the 1940s.

Deborah, the truth about Maori issues is not getting out there thanks to a sustained, government-inspired, media-assisted brainwashing campaign, which has proven highly successful.

That truth deserves to be told. If I could afford to take a year off, I’d write a book about it myself.

Failing that, a campaign is required to clarify the issues for the public, so that traitors like Key and Finlayson have an electoral incentive to stop perpetuating the lie.

Failing that, at least it would be good if one or two members of the panel empowered to review our constitution were well enough informed and of sufficient integrity to push back against the tide of tripe that will no doubt be unleashed on that body by its Maori masters.

Are you on-side?

John

_______________________________________________

I sent a second email on January 10 and she replied the same day that she had just returned from holiday and would reply as soon as she could.

Nineteen days later I sent my third email:

From: John Ansell
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 11:49 AM
To: Deborah Coddington
Subject: FW: Will you stick up for non-Maori?

Hi Deborah,

Are you still planning to reply to my email of 5 January?

Since receiving your acknowledgement email over two weeks ago, I read your Herald column in which you stated:

“In terms of financial wealth, Australia is financially better off, but they could learn something from us in terms of respecting tangata whenua. Yes, the English ripped off the Maori, too, when it came to getting them to sign the Treaty of Waitangi. Henry Williams deliberately mistranslated from Maori to English to protect his land holdings, and numerous other travesties were perpetrated.”

Forgive me if I’m jumping to conclusions, but this does not suggest to me that you bring a neutral perspective to the task of reviewing New Zealand’s constitution.

I would be interested to know where you came by this information, as it doesn’t tally with my understanding, supplied by historians and researchers who have examined the source documents.

I know there are other historians – the Claudia Oranges, Dame Anne Salmonds and Paul Moons – who can be relied upon to parrot the grievance industry line, but when challenged make like climate alarmists and take a haughty stance but cannot support their conclusions.

I find that pattern of response most interesting.

One of the people with whom I’m in touch is Dr John Robinson, a Harvard-trained researcher who has recently published a book detailing how he was once forced by his Waitangi Tribunal employers at Vic to alter his conclusions about the cause of Maori depopulation in the late 1800s.

John’s evidence pointed clearly to the cause being the depletion of Maori breeding stock as a result of 60,000 mainly young Maori men being slaughtered by fellow Maori in the musket wars.

This, coupled with the widespread practice of female infanticide (girls being regarded as uneconomic burdens on the family), meant that there were not enough Maori of parenting age to replace themselves.

But this conclusion was not what the Waitangi Tribunal wanted to hear, so John was told he would not be paid until this conclusion was sufficiently fudged to imply that the real cause was European land-grabbing.

To his shame, in order to be paid, he complied.

He suspects he is far from alone among Tribunal researchers in distorting his findings in this way. Indeed a book by Dr Giselle Byrnes of Vic blew the whistle on this as well, from memory.

Anyway, John kept his secret to himself for some years, until his conscience got the better of him and he published The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy — A Treaty Overview last year.

I blogged on it here:

https://johnansell.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/treaty-corruption-confession-researcher-forced-to-rewrite-repor-to-fit-official-anti-pakeha-myth/

Deborah, you are an investigative journalist with a good track record for fighting fearlessly for causes you believe in.

No doubt you place great store in getting your facts right before making statements like this. So it could very well be that you have seen documents which I have not.

(I, too, am solely motivated by truth, and I challenge my sources relentlessly when I suspect they’re exaggerating.

But after many months of exchanges, they’ve held up well.

If, however, I find I’ve been misled, I’m not too proud to publicly say I was wrong — as I did with global warming, where I intitially swallowed whole the views of Al Gore.)

Then again, it could be that you, like many others in the media, have just accepted what the Treaty grievance industry has told you, and that their tame historians have written.

I’m hoping not.

And even if you have, I’m hoping you will be genuinely interested in seeing the contrary evidence I mentioned – evidence that points to a gigantic state-sponsored, academia-aided, media-abetted cover-up of the truth of our pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial history.

It seems to me that 85% of New Zealanders who do not worship Maoridom (clearly now a religion, rather than a distinct race) — probably 90% if you include the many principled Maori who don’t want a bar of the grievance industry — deserve to be represented on the Constitutional Review Panel.

If the Panel had been fairly constituted, and not a Key-Sharples jackup, they would, of course, be represented in proportion to their share of the population.

The 50% Maori membership says everything we need to know about the likely outcome of the panel’s deliberations.

Sadly, reading your article, and looking at the other names on the panel, it appears the large European proportion of the 85% may not be represented at all.

Presumably John Burrows can be relied upon to examine the issues fairly.

But will he able to withstand the pressure from ‘Tipene’ (who, revealingly, calls himself Steve in non-Maori circles) O’Regan, Ranginui Walker and the rest?

And if you, as a celebrated investigative journalist, will not look at the evidence that supports the interests of 85% of the population — and exposes the unfair maligning of our British forebears — who will?

If the 85% can’t get satisfaction from this National-Maori Party excuse for a constitutional review, then a public information campaign will have to be mounted to expose the jackup and present the evidence with blinding and unprecedented clarity.

I’m still hoping you are prepared to at least look at the evidence and, if you see what I see, stand up against the deliberate distortion of our history.

I would be grateful if you would indicate your position one way or the other.

Thanks and best wishes,

John

_______________________________________________

Deborah replied promptly and we had the following exchange (my reply in italics):

From: Deborah Coddington
Sent: Sunday, 29 January 2012 12:41 p.m.
To: John Ansell
Subject: RE: Will you stick up for non-Maori?

Hi John,

1. The reason for the delay in replying to you is that I had a family emergency involving my mother, for whom I am the primary care-giver. This is not an excuse, just a reason.

JA: I’m sorry to hear that Deborah. I have a Martinborough friend whose mother is in the same home as yours. (In fact, she used to run it, but no longer remembers.) I hope things worked out OK.

2. Re the Constitutional Advisory Panel. It is important that you separate my columns from the panel.

JA: That’s a bit hard for me, as you’re still the same person.

I presume you don’t mean you hold different views at different times.

I can imagine your tone changing depending on whether you’re writing for the Herald or representing the government on a panel. But not your views, and it’s those views I’m interested in.

I asked you where you came by your views about English ripping off Maori and Williams deliberately mistranslating the Treaty.

You haven’t answered, but I understand it was from the writings of Paul Moon.

Here’s a view from another Auckland University historian which refutes that: http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/document/Volume_111_2002/Volume_111,_No._3/Translating_the_Treaty_Of_Waitangi,_by_John_Laurie,_p_255-258/p1

Now I don’t say my source is better than your source.

But I do hope you’re looking carefully at both sides of this issue, and not just one side.

I’ll do my best to see that you get the other side, which I think you may find enlightening.

If and when, in my Herald on Sunday columns, I write about race relations issues, or Treaty of Waitangi issues, this has nothing at all to do with the Constitutional Advisory Panel and in no way represents the Panel.

Indeed, one of the co-chairs stated that it would be unfortunate were my role on the panel serve to stifle my opinions in my column.

3. Which leads me to explain the role of the Panel, and that of all other 11 members, which is most definitely not to “review New Zealand’s constitution”.

There still abounds a misconception that we are in some way going to ‘write a constitution for New Zealand’.

JA: Yes, the perception is that the panel is a jackup designed to produce a Maorified constitution.

And it’s an entirely logical perception, after the contemptuous way the government (mainly Obfuscator-General Finlayson and his bully-boy Select Committee chair Tau Henare) treated non-Maori submissions to the Marine and Coastal Areas Bill.

Our personal and political opinions will not be influential in this process.

JA: This I struggle to believe.

Why would they stack the panel with avowedly pro-Maori members (both brown and white) and not intend the opinions of the likes of Ranginui Walker and Tipene O’Regan to be influential?

Furthermore, if the Panel’s enquiries reveal that most New Zealanders don’t agree with them and want a colour-blind constitution, will that be what they recommend?

I repeat the questions that you have yet to answer: Will you speak up for the 85% of New Zealanders who are not Maori? And if not, who on that panel will?

If, as I suspect, the answer is “No one” (with the possible exception of John Burrows), then that clearly smacks of another sneaky attempt to achieve Apartheid Aotearoa by stealth — if not surrender New Zealand to the brown supremacist movement.

The role of the Panel is to try and get a debate and discussion going, throughout New Zealand, and canvass all New Zealanders on constitutional issues and New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements, and hear their views on all this country’s constitutional issues and arrangements, not at all restricted to Treaty of Waitangi issues, but anything at all regarding constitutional issues which press their buttons.

That can include the flag, republicanism, etc.

JA: All New Zealanders? Now that would be a refreshing change!

So here’s a question:

If an overwhelming majority of New Zealanders wanted National to keep its 2005 and 2008 election promises and abolish the Maori seats, would the Panel duly recommend that to its government masters?

Or do you think the opinions of its members might insert themselves into the discussion to ensure the exact opposite result?

You last saw me at a meeting in Masterton with Don Brash. As you may know, Don publicly disowned me for my ad “Fed up with the Maorification of Everything?”

But I have great respect for the way Don was prepared to stand up for the majority of New Zealanders on Maori issues.
(The tragedy was that he lacked the political nous to push on when he had the country in the palm of his hand.)

About the only highlight of his recent foray with ACT was his debate with Hone Harawira, when he answered “No” to the question “Are Maori special?”

Now despite his bluntness (what he really meant was “Yes, but no more special than any other New Zealanders”), the next night 81% of a massive 40,000 Close Up viewers paid 99c to vote “No” to the question “Do Maori have a special place in New Zealand?”

Which is a rather long way of saying that if the Panel conducts its enquiries fairly, it’s likely to find that the Will of the People on Treaty issues is radically different from either the Will of the Panel or the Will of the Government.

The people will want a dismantling of the Treaty grievance industry, especially once they’ve seen the evidence that I’ve seen.

Will the Panel have the integrity to reflect the Will of the People?

Fat chance, I’d say.

4. So this is why it is important that people like you, with a strong voice, and a lot to say, take the time to get your arguments together so that when the Panel begins its physical journey around New Zealand this year you, and all the people who support, listen to, or oppose your arguments, will submit your submissions on constitutional issues and arrangements to the Panel members.

JA: People like me will certainly be making our arguments. Whether they’re allowed to be heard is another matter.

Many of us remember the way the Coastal Coalition submitters were treated last time.

We’re not stupid, and we can see from the stacking of the Panel that if we don’t rise up now, New Zealand as we know it could soon be over.

5. For my bit, I will definitely try to keep you informed about the Panel’s timetable, and how it will be calling for submissions and where the meetings, etc, will be held, be that in person, by way of websites, or whatever.

JA: Thank you, I’d appreciate that.

I see there is a debate at Te Papa involving John Burrows on February 2.

I hope it’s better than the climate change debate I attended at Vic, where all 10 debaters were on the same side, and only I, in an auditorium of hundreds, was heard to present a dissenting view (which they rudely and studiously ignored).

On the subject of why I am a member of the Panel – I truly have no idea why I was appointed. It came completely out of the blue.

I doubt I was appointed by Pita Sharples, as you assert.

Bill English phoned me and asked me if I was interested.

I said yes, but warned him I doubted if he’d get it passed cabinet because

a) I regularly criticise politicians, including National, in my column and

b) I am particularly hard on Act and Rodney Hide was in cabinet at that time.

I did say that I would not go away and sulk if the answer was negative and much to my eternal surprise I passed muster.

And the only reason I expressed dismay when Don Brash said vehemently there were no full-blooded Maori in NZ was because

a) I didn’t see why it mattered, unless he was aligned with the One New Zealand Foundation and

b) for someone who prided himself on rigorous research I (who am known to be shaky in that department) knew it to be easily proved wrong.

JA: Do you have an issue with the One New Zealand Foundation?

I’ve seen Ross Baker and Martin Doutre maligned by the usual suspects, and I’ve also grilled them and studied their responses.

I try to torture-test all claims based on the evidence. And their evidence seems to me to warrant respect for the diligence with which it has been gathered, and in nearly all cases its accuracy.

If you’re shaky on research, then I’ll see that you’re well supplied by those who’ve written many books on the subject.

I’m quite happy to be attacked as a racist by people like Willie Jackson who are vastly moreso.

What I can’t stand is the thought of making claims which are demonstrably false.

So if I find my informers are telling me lies, I will immediately disown them publicly and apologise equally publicly.

But in the exchanges I’ve had with those who’ve put in thousands of hours researching the source documents connected with this issue, I’m generally astonished by how rigorously their conclusions stack up against those of the state-sponsored so-called ‘experts’.

All I ask is that you show the same curiosity, examine both sides, and go where the facts, rather than the natural desire to be loved, lead you.

Kind regards, thank you for taking the time to write, and keep in touch.

Deborah Coddington

JA: Thanks. I’m disappointed you haven’t shown any interest in the evidence, or answered my questions, but I’ll keep in touch too.

_______________________________________________

She did not address any of my points. Nine days later, I received this email:

From: Deborah Coddington
Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2012 9:41 p.m.
To: John Ansell
Cc: Isabel Poulson
Subject: RE: Will you stick up for non-Maori?

Dear John,

I am taking the liberty of copying this reply to Isabel Poulson, Advisor, Secretariat, Constitutional Advisory Panel, Ministry of Justice, who can help you in future with submissions on constitutional matters to the Panel.

Regards,

Deborah Coddington

_______________________________________________

A month later, having had no further word, I replied as follows:

From: John Ansell
Sent: Wednesday, 7 March 2012 2:25 p.m
To: Deborah Coddington
Cc: Isabel Poulson
Subject: RE: Will you stick up for non-Maori?

Thank you Deborah.

I presume this is the most fulsome response I am going to get to my questions, so I too will be taking the liberty of copying our exchange to interested New Zealanders.

It now appears that of all the members of the Constitutional Advisory Panel, only Dr John Burrows can be relied upon to provide any semblance of balance.

The Te Papa Treaty ‘Debate’ which we both attended the other night — complete with the Radio New Zealand producer’s orchestration of fake audience applause before the ‘debate’ had even begun — was a disgraceful corruption of a word which in my dictionary means a two-sided stoush, not a mutual appreciation society.

If the third speaker, Maori Marxist Associate Professor Nin Thomas, is able to realise her vision, New Zealanders will soon be sampling the delights of the Bolivian constitution, with its fawning over fauna and flora at the expense of such inconveniences as human beings and their precious property rights.

It said it all that Te Papa was happy to give this dangerous revolutionary a platform, while not inviting a single representative of the majority view, lest they poison the spirit of the farce with ‘racist’ notions of racial equality and a colourblind state.

Well, I do not intend to take this planned destruction of my country lying down.

I intend to work full-time, using whatever contacts and resources I can muster, to awaken New Zealanders to this outrageous assault on the core of our national being.

Needless to say I will be thoroughly exposing the perpetrators with all the subtlety for which I am known!

John

_______________________________________________

And so I am now fundraising for a major campaign to tell the truth about the Treaty with unprecedented clarity.

Helping me is a group of concerned and knowledgeable New Zealanders, including eight authors of Treaty-related books.

My evidence will show British-descended New Zealanders that their forebears acted with an astonishing degree of honour and goodwill towards Maori throughout the colonisation process, that they saved Maori from extinction at their own hands, and that they should regard those brave pioneers with pride, not guilt.

I expect these revelations to so enrage the public that the National Party will have no choice but to honour its own policy, end state racism, and create a Colourblind State.

It is time to expose the forty year state-sponsored brainwashing campaign that has deprived a generation of New Zealanders of access to their own history.

I call that brainwashing campaign Treatygate — The Conning of a Country.

To present my Treatygate evidence in places the public will see it, I will need a large amount of money (and I’ve made a promising start).

Please let me know if you can help.

Published in:

on March 14, 2012 at 11:11 pm Comments (8)

‘Marks-ism’ leads to classroom warfare

An economics class insisted to their professor that Obama’s socialism worked. Why?

“Because there’ll be no poor people and no rich bastards. At last we’ll all be equal,” chorused the students.

So the professor said:

“OK, we’ll run an experiment on Obama’s plan. I’ll average all your grades.

“You’ll all get the same grade. None of you will fail, and none of you will get an A.”

After the first test, the grades were averaged. The whole class got a B.

The students who’d studied hard were upset. But the students who’d mucked around were over the moon.

The second test rolled around. The students who hadn’t done much work the first time did even less this time.

And those who’d studied hard for the first test now decided they wanted a free ride too. They put down their books and went partying.

The second test average was a D!

No one was happy.

In the 3rd test, the average grade was an F.

The tests went on, but the scores never did improve.

The classroom had become a snakepit of bickering, blaming and name-calling. No one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, at the end of the term the professor failed the whole class. (He’d never before failed a single student.)

The professor told the class:

“Socialism is also bound to fail. Because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great. But when government takes all the reward away, no one will see any point in working.”

It couldn’t be any simpler than that.

Remember, there is a test coming up: next Saturday’s election.

Now here are five of the best sentences you’ll ever read. They all apply to the above experiment:

You can’t legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
What one person gets without working for, another person must work for without getting.
The government can’t give anyone anything that it doesn’t first take from someone else.
You can’t multiply wealth by dividing it!
When half the people figure out they don’t have to work because the other half will take care of them, and when the other half figure out they’d be mad to work because their pay will be given to someone else, that’s the beginning of the end of any nation.

Thanks to the excellent Foundation for Economic Growth for sending me the original (which I tinkered with for effect).

Published in:

Uncategorized

on November 19, 2011 at 12:33 pm Comments (12)

Should we fence all rivers to protect toddlers from slack parents?

The Dominion Post devotes half this morning’s front page to the bleatings of a drowned toddler’s uncle that the council should have fenced the river in which his 2 year old nephew drowned.

A family hit by a drowning tragedy had repeatedly pleaded with the council to build a fence where a toddler died.

Sukhraj Singh, 2, died and his cousin Archilles Kaui, 3, remains in hospital in a critical condition after the pair wandered into Gisborne’s Taruheru River on Thursday.

“I’ve been asking myself all night, would this have happened if the fence was put up in our neighbourhood? And the answer is no. Because those toddlers would not have been able to get past the fence”, Sukhraj’s uncle Hemi Jahnke said.

And why were the toddlers able to get anywhere near the river? The Dom finally reveals all in paragraph 10:

Before the tragedy, Archilles’ mother, Diana McIntyre, had been visiting Sukhraj’s mother, Jamie Taewa, at her home in Atkinson St. It was thought about 10 to 15 minutes passed before the women noticed the two toddlers had wandered off.

Well sorry, but any mother who lets a toddler out of her sight for 10 or 15 minutes near a river has no one to blame but herself if the child drowns.

That’s a hard thing to write at this sad time, especially as the poor mother may well have arrived at the same conclusion and does not necessarily share the uncle’s view.

But for the uncle to blame the council (ie the rest of us) is outrageously unfair.

Members of the family were part of community group Kia Kaha Mangapapa, a charitable trust started to try to make a positive difference in the area. The idea of a fence at the reserve was brought up at several hui called with Gisborne District Council last year. Archilles’ parents, Ms McLean and Frank Kaui, attended one of the meetings.

Mr Jahnke said the council had agreed to put up the fence.

“They did have a plan for the fence but because the fence was going to cost too much it started getting smaller and smaller. Eventually it turned into just a fence around the culvert.”

He was angry with the council.

“How many lives have been lost in river accidents because the council says they haven’t got enough money?

“And them listening now is not going to bring back Sukhraj. It’s not going to bring back a baby boy. But someone needs to be held accountable.”

Damn right. And I think most of us have a fair idea who.

Gisborne District Council acting chief executive Nedine Thatcher-Swann said it was “inconclusive” whether fencing the reserve would have made a difference at this stage.

Fencing every waterway into which a poorly supervised toddler could wander would certainly make a huge difference to the amount of public money available for other services. Or to Gisborne residents’ rates bills.

In my view the Council did exactly the right thing in refusing to assume the role of parents.

“Around the country and the world it is very unusual to find our natural environments – rivers, lakes or ponds – fenced.”

And so it should be. Do we really want to turn our country into an unsightly baby-prison, just so we can protect our toddlers from slack parents?

I grew up in a house near the Waiwhetu Stream in Fairfield, Lower Hutt. The Stream got a bad press for being badly polluted down the industrial end, but the suburban reaches were and are a delightfully meandering waterway that greatly enhances the ambience of the area.

It remains unfenced, despite being bounded by houses for miles, and is dotted with reserves, also unfenced.

Presumably, parents who choose to live there, like mine did, also take responsibility for watching their children.

I hope the Dominion Post will reflect on the message their story sends, and provide some balance in the coming days.

Published in:

on November 5, 2011 at 10:50 am Comments (26)

RIP Viv Ansell (1919-2011)

After a determined bid to defeat medical science, Dad breathed his last on Monday, exactly four weeks after his stroke.

This is my first experience of losing a close family member — a prospect I’ve been dreading for years – and I must say I’m feeling better than expected.

Perhaps it’s knowing that Dad is free of pain after living a long and happy life. Perhaps it’s the relief of seeing Mum coping so bravely with the loss of her husband of 55 years. Or perhaps it’s the long period of adjustment that a bedside vigil affords you.

Whatever the reason, the experience has drawn our family closer together and we look forward to giving him a good sendoff on Friday.

Despite my earlier reservations about the pill that cost him his life, it’s been a privilege to witness the dedication of the doctors and nurses at Hutt and Wellington Hospitals, who cared for him like he was one of their own.

That’s all you can ask for in the end.

Published in:

Uncategorized

on October 5, 2011 at 8:53 am Comments (13)

What the ‘wonderdrug’ is doing to my Dad

You may have seen this article in the last Sunday Star-Times about the lethal side-effects of new blood thinning ‘wonderdrug’ Pradaxa (AKA dabigatran).

In today’s edition, there’s another story of a Pradaxa victim in Tauranga fighting for his life.

Sadly, I have a good idea of what this man and his family are going through.

The reason I haven’t been blogging is that for the last three weeks, my 91 year old dad has been fighting the same fight, after taking the same drug.

A couple of nights ago, a doctor told us he’d be surprised if Dad had more than a few hours to live.

There’s only so much battering a 91 year old body can take from the combined effects of a bad stroke, pneumonia, blood loss, incontinence, bed sores, and the repeated invasions of various body parts by various tubes.

All caused by a ‘wonderdrug’, taken once.

While the transfusion machine pumped the fresh blood of some generous unknown donor into the repeatedly punctured veins of his purply-black arm, we called in the family, gathered round his bed, and waited.

With insight gained from his wife who nurses the dying, the young registrar predicted that the life or death call would be made by Dad himself.

Luckily, some time in the wee small hours, he chose life. Late the next morning, oblivious to our anxiety, he awoke refreshed from the deepest sleep he’d had in weeks.

Another bullet dodged.

I told him the doctors were surprised he was still with us. His raspy, oxygen-assisted response was inspirational and unforgettable.

As himself, my father was not the gloating type. He was a gentle man in every sense.

But of late, with his slim reserves of expressive energy, he’s learnt to cut to the chase. With all the force he could muster, he grunted majestically (and somewhat Muldoonishly):

“Heh … heh … heh … the … doctors … don’t … know … me!”

Some med students trooped past his room. I explained to Dad that he was now in a teaching hospital (Wellington, having been transferred from Hutt in an ambulance the previous day).

Screwing his face into a wink, he muttered:

“We’ll … teach … the … doctors!”

Dad started teaching doctors about the will to live in 1919. For him, the Twenties were more wheezing than Roaring.

It was by no means certain that his weedy, sunken-chested, asthmatic body would make it through to enjoy the Great Depression.

He first listened to his beloved All Blacks on the radio in 1928 — a ritual I was to repeat at the same age in 1967, propped up in his and Mum’s bed.

To suggest in the 1920s that this sickly kid would one day watch his team contest the 2011 Rugby World Cup would be to invite admission to one of Her Majesty’s lunatic asylums.

Yet for the best part of 91 years — until 6.30am on 5 September 2011 – Dad was true to his name: Vivian — full of life.

On his 90th birthday he invited everyone back for his 100th, and fully intended to keep the appointment.

His gym-going was as religious as his church-going.

This past summer, he came second in the over 90s section of a Hutt Valley bowls tournament. (The other entrant was just too good.)

As he recently wrote in a book about his 43 years with the BNZ (originally written just for family, but now happily purchased by 400 past and present bankers), “I may have had to discard my rugby ball and tennis racquet, but I’ve still got my marbles.”

And he did. A few months ago, he published that book. Now he can’t read one.

Two weeks ago, he managed to watch half of the All Blacks-Tonga match before drifting off, but not before confidently asserting that the final score would be 42-9.

(He was wrong. It was 41-10.)

Last night, he couldn’t be bothered watching the All Blacks play France on the TV staring him in the face.

One little dose of the ‘wonderdrug’ was all it took. One pill.

On the Wednesday, he was taken off his warfarin. At 5.30pm, he swallowed his first and only dose of dabigatran. By 9.30pm, he was feeling so weird and disoriented that Mum had to call an ambulance.

The next day, his doctor put him back on his warfarin, but by then the ‘wonderdrug’ had done its worst.

At Father’s Day dinner on the Sunday, he told me he’d “had a bit of a setback”, the first I heard of the above.

The next morning, Mum awoke to the thump-thump of Dad hitting his head on the bedside furniture, and his body flopping on the floor.

He’d had two small strokes in 1998 and 2005. But this was a biggie. Into Hutt Hospital by ambulance, fortunately to the Wellington region’s only dedicated stroke unit.

And the staff are dedicated too. They just can’t be there all the time. Neither, sadly, can we.

He can’t swallow, so has to be fed through a tube. In the delirium brought on by the stroke, he keeps trying to pull the tube out, and all too often succeeds.

For the last few days we thought we had him tamed, but this morning when the watching nurse was distracted, he yanked it out again.

Each time he does this, he has to endure having a long plastic tube inserted up his nose and down his throat into what we hope is his stomach, but is sometimes his lungs. Then they have to do it again. Once it came out his mouth by mistake.

Every time they put the tube back in, he has to be X-rayed to check the food is going into the right cavity.

I’ll spare you the details of the other orifices. Suffice it to say that, at times like this, it’s a shame we have so many.

We don’t know how this story will end, or when.

If you can spare a thought for a 91 year old man who’s led a good life, his sub-conscious would, I think, be pleased to hear from you.

Published in:

Uncategorized

on September 26, 2011 at 12:17 am Comments (11)

Key confesses: National socialist

The leader of the party founded to oppose socialism has confessed to being a socialist himself. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5509870/Wikileaks-Key-said-Kiwis-have-socialist-streak

John Key told an American diplomat in 2007 that National could not adopt conservative policies because “a socialist streak runs through all New Zealanders”.

And yet he campaigned on them anyway.

Asked if he had a socialist streak he said “absolutely” and confirmed, “I’m a product of the welfare state.”

Key equates socialism with caring and “having a heart”.

And thinks highly of Michael ‘Decade of Deficits’ Cullen. (Not to mention Rob ‘Think Big’ Muldoon.)

And this in the week when food prices hit record highs thanks to Key’s heart-felt, caring Emissions Trading Scheme.

So now it’s official. The New Zealand National Party is, in fact, the National Socialist Party.

I hope that clears things up for any National supporters who still pretend their party is centre-right.

Published in:

on August 27, 2011 at 7:55 pm Comments (18)

Douglas points to why youth unemployment doubled

This graph from ACT’s Roger Douglas illustrates John Key’s duplicity in first helping to cause, then pretending to care about, youth unemployment.

National, Labour and the Greens — all parties bar ACT – voted down Roger’s bill to reinstate youth rates and get kids off the couch and into work.

By refusing to allow kids to be paid less than adults, Key deliberately allowed the number of young unemployed to double.

Now he’s offering a dollop of your money to any boss who pays a kid an adult’s wage.

Why not just let the boss pay the kid a kid’s wage, and let the kid work their way up – the way most of us did?

Excellent graph, whoever did this.

Published in:

on August 24, 2011 at 10:20 am Comments (15)

EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE TREATY, BUT WERE TOO TERRIFIED OF BEING LABELLED A RACIST TO ASK — Part 1: Maori Ask British for Protection From Maori

BERJAYA

This is the first of a series of posts designed to bust the myths created by the Treaty of Waitangi grievance industry — myths shamelessly presented as truths by your government.

If you think it rude of me to expose these facts, tough. If conmen are going to tell lies about my forefathers, I’m going to tell the truth about theirs.

Much of what you see below is distilled from New Zealand in Crisis by Ross Baker of the One New Zealand Foundation.

In the plainest English I could muster, here is the boiled-down background to the drafting and signing of the Treaty:

c.1350 — Maori meet the tangata whenua

Maori history tells of seven canoes arriving from Hawaiki in around 1350AD.
They find New Zealand already inhabited by people they call the tangata whenua.
Maori historian Dr Ranginui Walker confirms: “The traditions are quite clear: wherever crew disembarked there were already tangata whenua (prior inhabitants).”
These first inhabitants are either driven into extinction or merge with the tangata Maori (just as the tangata Maori have merged with the Pakeha).
Ranginui Walker: “The canoe ancestors of the 14^th century merged with these tangata whenua tribes.”
Thus Maori are not indigenous to New Zealand.
Nor are they the tangata whenua — the first people here.
Indigenous means here from the start — like the aborigines who’ve been in Australia for 40,000 years.
Maori have been here only about 650 years – only 300 years longer than Europeans.
Maori have never been a united people, with a long history of inter-tribal bloodletting.
Ranginui Walker: “From this time on [the 14^th century] , the traditions abound with accounts of tribal wars over the land and its resources”.

1771 — fighting with Frenchmen

In 1771 in the Bay of Islands, Maori kill Marion du Fresne and 24 of his party for ignoring wahi tapu when fishing.

In retaliation, du Fresne’s crew kill 250 Maori and torch their village.
Ever since, the Maori are afraid of the French.

1820-30 — Maori slaughter 20-60,000 fellow Maori

By 1820, the Maori v Maori Musket Wars have been raging for around 15 years. They will go on for about another 25 years.

There are around 500 battles in all.
In 1820, Ngapuhi chief Hongi Hika sails to England.
He asks the King for muskets. The King declines, but presents him with other gifts.
In Sydney on the way home, he trades all the King’s gifts for 300 muskets and gunpowder.
He then leads his tribe on a rampage south. They slaughter 20-60,000 of their defenceless countrymen, out of a total Maori population of 100-120,000. With up to half the population wiped out, it has been called the world’s worst holocaust.
In one attack on the Tamaki pa, Ngapuhi kill more men, women and children than are killed in the whole 27 years of the 1845-72 Land Wars.

By 1830 the southern tribes have armed themselves with muskets and are planning to head north for revenge.

1831 — Waikato annihilate Taranaki, who slaughter the Moriori

The Waikato travel south and attack the Taranaki tribes.

They kill one-third and enslave another third. The remaining third flees south to the Wellington area.

1831 – Northern chiefs ask King for protection

In 1831, it’s rumoured that the French naval vessel La Favourite intends to annex New Zealand to France.
The French would have two reasons for doing this: as further payback for the killing of du Fresne and his crew; and to protect the French now living in Hokianga.
The natives decide to place a British flag on the mission flagstaff. They reason that if the French tear it down, the missionaries will appeal to Britain for protection.
Thirteen northern chiefs write to the King of England, asking him to protect them.
They tell the King they only trust the British: “It is only thy land which is liberal towards us”.
They reveal their fear of the French: “We have heard that the tribe of Marian [the French] is at hand, coming to take away our land”.
They ask the King to guard their lands from other tribes and nations: “Therefore we pray thee to become our friend and the guardian of these islands, lest the teasing of other tribes should come near us, and lest strangers should come and take away our land”.
At the time there are no property rights. To the Maori, might is right — they hold their land only as long as they can defend it.

The King acknowledges the chiefs’ request by sending a British Resident, James Busby, to New Zealand in 1833.

1835 – Declaration of Independence

New Zealand-built ships are sailing to Sydney.

These ships are not registered, so have no flag to sail under.

So James Busby introduces to the northern tribes a Declaration of Independence.

This gives them a form of identity, and a flag under which New Zealand ships can be registered.

In 1835, thirty-four Ngapuhi chiefs sign the Declaration of Independence.

This declares their territories independent states. It states they will meet in Congress each year.

The annual Congress is meant to make laws to dispense justice, preserve peace and good order, and regulate trade.

But, as always, inter-tribal fighting takes precedence over political co-operation.

The Declaration is abandoned without one Congress meeting being held.

The Declaration can’t give full sovereignty, as the chiefs can’t form a united working government.

Tribes only have power over their territories as long as they can defend them.

No united political structure exists in New Zealand at this time.

What historians say about the Declaration of Independence

Claudia Orange:

“Even though the declaration asserted sovereignty, Maori, who saw themselves as tribal rather than as members of a nation, would have been unable to exercise full rights as an independent state, there was no indigenous political structure upon which to base a united congress.

“However, it did introduce Maori to the idea of a legal relationship with Britain and therefore, five years later, to the Treaty of Waitangi”.

Michael King:

“The Declaration had no reality, since there was in fact no national indigenous power structure within New Zealand”.

King also pointed out that some of the United Tribes were at war with one another within a year of signing the Declaration.

Paul Moon:

“The Declaration represented a regional goodwill agreement rather than a national document of truly constitutional significance”.

1835 — Maori massacre Moriori in Chathams.

In 1835, 900 of the Taranaki (Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama) who flee to Wellington, want to avoid being harassed further.
They commandeer the brig Rodney and sail in two trips to the Chatham Islands.
Many are sick when they arrive, and are nursed back to health by the peace-loving Moriori.
When they recover, and for the next seven years, the Maori slaughter or farm the Moriori to near-extinction.
Historian Michael King: “They were laid out touching one another, the parent and the child. Some women had stakes thrust into them; they were left to die in misery. The rest farmed like sheep over the next few years into virtual extinction”.

1837 – Call for better government

In 1837, inter-tribal fighting worsens in many parts of New Zealand.
Busby can do little to stop it, as he has no forces.
The settlers, traders and 192 chiefs want more official commitment. They appeal to Britain for a better type of Government.
As inter-tribal fighting worsens, the Maori population plummets.
Musket- and goods-hungry Maori are selling vast tracts of their land to land-hungry Europeans.
Britain is twice asked (in 1831 and 1835), and twice promises, to protect the people and their property.
To bring law and order to both Maori and non-Maori, Britain is obliged to take more control.
To do this legally, they need to make New Zealand a British Colony.
To make New Zealand a colony, Britain has to get the chiefs’ consent to sovereignty over the whole land.

For two years, the Colonial Office debates the best way to become involved in New Zealand. The British don’t really want another colony.
With extreme reluctance, the Colonial Office sends out William Hobson, a highly ranked Officer in the British Navy.
Hobson’s job is to negotiate a treaty with the chiefs that will give Britain sovereignty over the whole land.
That treaty will give Britain the legal right to set up a government.
A government will bring law, order and protection. It may investigate and settle land sales, titles and disputes.
The government will act for all the people of New Zealand, settler and Maori alike.

Next: the drafting and signing of the Treaty.

UPDATE: It’s taking me longer than expected to gather my evidence for Part 2. (There’s just so much of it, and I’m also contending with a family illness.)

For now, I urge you to click on the Comments thread below. It has attracted some experts in the field who have spent decades studying this subject. I’m finding their contributions enlightening.

Published in:

on August 20, 2011 at 11:11 pm Comments (213)

What Windschuttle said that inspired Breivik

It is truly sad for the placid people of Norway that their two best-known citizens would seem to be a traitor and a mass-murderer.

Vidkun Quisling — the wartime minister-president who collaborated with the Nazis against Norwegians, especially Jews.
Anders Breivik — the gunman who slaughtered young Labour Party members in protest against Muslim immigration.

Breivik says he was inspired by, among others (including philosopher John Stuart Mill), the editor of Australia’s Quadrant magazine, Keith Windschuttle.

Needless to say, Windschuttle has not been having an easy time of it lately.

What passes for lefty logic runs like this:

Breivik is a mass-murderer.
Breivik hates the way Western media hate the West.
Breivik loves Windschuttle’s speech hating the way Western media hate the West.
THEREFORE:
Windschuttle is a party to mass murder.

Guilty as charged, wouldn’t you say?

And there’s a Kiwi link too.

You see, the speech Windschuttle made that Breivik took such a shine to was made in New Zealand — at Amy Brooke’s Summersounds Symposium in 2006.

(This was a wonderful event which I also attended in 2007, 2008 and 2009 — making me, in the eyes of at least one blog commenter, a fellow murderer.)

Here’s what Windschuttle actually said (the subheads and paragraphing are mine):

The Adversary Culture

The Perverse Anti-Westernism of the Cultural Elite
by Keith Windschuttle

For the past three decades and more, many of the leading opinion makers in our universities, the media and the arts have regarded Western culture as, at best, something to be ashamed of, or at worst, something to be opposed. (more…)

Published in:

on August 19, 2011 at 2:04 pm Comments (10)

Ad that Dom banned cleared by ASA

My ACT ad that contained 40 statements of fact has been cleared by the Advertising Standards Authority.

MAORI RADICALS ADVERT NOT IN BREACH – ASA

The Advertising Standards Authority has rejected a complaint about ACT’s controversial “Fed up with pandering to Maori radicals?” newspaper advertisement.

Twelve people argued the advert was “misleading, offensive, racist, in breach of the requirement for a due sense of social responsibility and likely to play on fear”.

The ASA said a political party advocating a robust view on matters of public interest allowed the public to see the party’s position. There was no breach of codes and no grounds for the complaints to proceed, it ruled.

Yet the Dominion Post refused to “allow the public to see the party’s position”.

As a private company, they had the right to ban the ad. (Whether they had the right to charge ACT full price for the space is another matter.)

But the public also has the right to know that the capital’s daily newspaper is politically biased against ACT.

This is the ad that the Herald ran, and the Dom banned:

What sort of democracy do we live in when a monopoly newspaper can be so cravenly politically correct as to ban a question that most of its readers would answer Yes to, backed by 40 true statements?

Published in:

on August 19, 2011 at 10:51 am Comments (4)

Oops — got the wrong end of the stick

When I wrote my last post about Parliament passing the fingerprint law under urgency I was under time pressure myself. (Well OK, my sons were hassling me to go for a beer.)

Coming back to it and reading the online version, I could not have got the gist of the One News report more wrong.

In fact, the law change does allow young offender fingerprints to be stored — great.

Apologies to the MPs I misrepresented.

(I must say I found it very hard to believe that Judith Collins could be signing up to something that would make life easier for criminals, so I’m pleased it was me who stuffed up, not her.)

I hope that’s the last time I put together a post in a hurry. I’m a slow writer, and this is why

Published in:

on August 18, 2011 at 11:29 pm Leave a Comment

The Evans Bay Turtle

BERJAYA

What is it about Wellington and its circular landmarks with eccentric nicknames?

The under-50s won’t remember when the twin-domed Welsh Dragon Bar in the middle of Kent and Cambridge Terraces used to be a public toilet block, known by all as the Taj Mahal.

At the far end of the same dual-dragstrip is the Basin Reserve, so named after the 1855 earthquake turned Basin Lake into a swamp, which the council then turned into a sports reserve.

Over in Thorndon there’s the parliamentary Beehive, which Sir Basil Spence designed on the back of a serviette. And the Cake Tin, named by yours truly in response to a call for a nickname by the Evening Post’s Angus Morrison.

(Note: popular rumour has it that the Cake Tin was named by an Auckland talk show host, which is why it wasn’t popular for a long time with Wellingtonians. Still others say it was Andrew Mehrtens. Being a rather obvious name, it was probably all three of us.)

And now we have a new stadium to name: the Kilbirnie Indoor Sports Centre in Evans Bay. It’s not quite circular, but near enough.

The Dom Post’s Hank Schouten is calling for nicknames, so I sent in this letter:

Like the Cake Tin, the new Kilbirnie Indoor Sports Centre is a good example of smooth, single-minded design.

Now, what to call it?

I worry that the architects’ favourite, The Limpet, while anatomically accurate, might be a bit, well, limp to catch on.

So what about the Saucer (as in flying), the Clam, the Oyster, the Stingray, the Flounder, the Slater or the Frisbee?

(Had they built it where Councillor Andy Foster wanted, it could have been the Downtown Indoor Sports Centre — DISC.)

A friend of mine argues noisily for The Trilobite, a creature I had not heard of, but which it clearly resembles.

But the nickname with the best combination of stickability and seaside relevance would have to be the Turtle.

What do you think? Feel free to suggest a name of your own. I may run a poll of the best of them.

But to me, if I squint as I drive round the bays I see a beached, bleached white turtle shell whose occupant is wisely staying indoors.

(As well he might. When I drove past on Monday, there was thick snow just around the corner in Shelly Bay.)

Published in:

on August 17, 2011 at 11:40 am Comments (3)

How we make the news in Aussie these days

The Tasman wage gap, which John Key once pretended to want to close, is also a poverty gap.

Here’s how it’s being reported in Australia.

Of course, setting the poverty line at 60% of median income is a typical lefty linguistic trick.

Poverty is starvation. Being only 60% as rich as the averge person is envy.

Still, relative to 30 other First World nations, New Zealand’s performance is shameful:

20th for children living in poor households

21st for infant mortality

29th for measles immunisation rates

29th for child health and safety

3oth for teen suicides.

Thanks Ross for sending me this clipping.

Published in:

on August 15, 2011 at 12:43 pm Comments (2)

Putting it bluntly — a police chief speaks his mind

I dedicate this post to Garth McVicar.

It’s a San Francisco police chief giving the bedwetter media a bollocking for making a big deal of the speed one of his officers was travelling when he was killed chasing an armed felon.

This guy would make a great politician. He knows people despise the liberal media’s warped sense of justice, so doesn’t hesitate to get straight on the front foot.

Why do most public figures lack this instinct and resort to weasel words and apologies?

We should celebrate people who speak plainly. They’re islands of truth in a sea of deceit.

Thanks Digby for sending me this video.

Published in:

on August 15, 2011 at 1:36 am Comments (3)

NBR editorial on Maorification

I coined the word Maorification with the deliberate goal of getting it into the language.

When ACT declined to use it, I decided to use it myself.

To me, no word less blunt — no euphemism like the racialisation preferred by my friend Stephen Franks — can do justice to the process by which New Zealand is being taken over by radical Maori.

Every day, I wonder whether it was the right thing to do to use that word.

It goes without saying in this topsy-turvy land that it would get me branded a racist. Anyone who refuses to agree that Maori should own New Zealand out to the 200 mile limit is branded a racist.

And sadly, it was always bound to upset some very good Maori people. (Not to mention legions of cringing white ’wets’ eager to suck up to Maoridom and disown their Western inheritance at every opportunity.)

But I think it was the right decision. Like it or not, Maorification is the right word.

Because this reverse takeover of the silent (and silenced) majority by a noisy, intimidating minority is real. It’s affecting and infecting every institution in our society.

And it’s speeding up.

And if we don’t jolt people into recognising the extent of it, it will soon be too late.

And so I was pleased to read this in today’s NBR editorial:

Beware sting in taniwha’s tail

A government plan to dovetail New Zealand into tail-wagging Maorification must be resisted.

If mishandled, the continued insidious encroachment into national affairs of the Treaty of Waitangi, its floating and fanciful “principles,” and craven kow-towing to a tax-draining minority, will impede – not enhance – economic development.

Foreign and onshore investors, as well as trading partners, may think twice when they see a country regarded as multiculturally stable embark on a path fraught with the prospect of racial privilege. Thanks to Maori and appeasing politicians, New Zealanders remain unnecessarily confused and at odds over a myriad of so-called “Maori issues,” including the true status of the foreshore and seabed, for example.

Confused largely and quite deliberately by Appeaser-General Chris Finlayson — champion (when he wants to be) of plain English law.

Conflict continues over ownership of natural resources.

The rabid property demands of Tuhoe – who want their own private fiefdom in the hills – are evidence of a brand of racial separatism that has no place in New Zealand.

This uncertainty for the majority has now spilled over into who may use national symbols such as the silver fern, who may perform a haka and who pays for clipping the lucrative koha ticket.

I prefer to use the true meaning of koha: ’bribe the tribe’. Let’s be honest, when a sum of koha can persuade a taniwha to return to its lair (as happened with the Waikato Expressway), we are dealing with an extortion racket.

Collectively, various Maori demands have been accommodated to such an extent that the pendulum has swung too far toward a minority at the risk of damaging the national good.

I use the pendulum analogy too. It’s about balance and fairness, and we cannot strike a fair balance when so much of the truth about the Treaty and its signatories remains unknown by the public.

Which is why greater scrutiny is needed over a recently announced 12-member constitutional advisory panel, whose dominant terms of reference are heavily skewed to favour the Maori minority. The ostensible purpose of the panel, which will cost the taxpayer $2 million in its first year, is to conduct a “wide-ranging review of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements.”

This includes the size of parliament, length of the electoral term, Maori representation, the role of the Treaty and whether a written constitution is needed.

While some objects are worthy of careful consideration on behalf of all New Zealanders, the blatant swing toward matters favouring Maori should give cause for concern.

Maori Affairs Minister and Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples, for one, sees consultation with Maori and the place of the Treaty in just about everything as a priority.

It is evidence of the strong pro-Maori slant that the panel will report to Dr Sharples and Deputy Prime Minister Bill English.

In the proud National tradition of allowing the Maori Affairs Select Committee to hear submissions into the Marine and Coastal Areas Bill!

While the panel’s musings and recommendations could simply be ignored, this is unlikely given its influential Maori imbalance.

With five “non-Maori New Zealanders,” five Maori, one Pacific Islander and one of “Asian ethnicity,” the panel is, on the surface, stacked against more than three-quarters of the population.

Figures produced in a 2010 Ministry of Social Development report on population ethnicity showed New Zealand’s population to be 77% European, 15% Maori, 10% Asian and 7% Pacific Island. (The same report projected the 2016 population would be 73% European, 16% Maori, 13% Asian and 8% Pacific Island.)

I see they had the same trouble I had with the MSD stats inflating the total to 109%.

The 77% actually includes ‘Other’ and ‘New Zealanders’, so I thought it safer to use the number 68%. But it makes no difference to the point they’re (and I was) making.

While Vote Maori will contribute $500,000 and the Ministry of Justice $1.5 million to pay for this panel, Maori get a greater say than their representation in the general population.

Economic growth and investment confidence should not be threatened or undermined by the potentially nation-fracturing agenda of a minority.

It’s fair to say most New Zealanders believe the present constitutional structure works, based largely on the proven democratic Westminster system and backed by the rule of law.

And more of them need to say so. That’s why this issue needs to be front-footed. People need to learn not to be silenced by the threat of being called racist. That’s a trick, and it’s worked a treat, and it’s high time it stopped working.

While Maori continue to be over-represented in the unemployment, child abuse, drug using, anti-social and general criminal offending stakes, some hotheads have demanded farcical “rights” over land and citizenship.

These demands, while nothing more than thinly disguised racial separatism, if met would still require all other New Zealanders to pay for them.

While a constitutional advisory panel should act in the interests of all New Zealanders, the racial bogeyman already stalks the land.

Well said.

And I do like this anonymous reader’s comment:

I dont believe it !
Finally an article with the spine and backbone to tell it like it is…
Is it possible that finally the little kiwi can face up to the reality that enough is enough.
Only last month a Muriel Newman blog article stated “What all of this means is that talk of Maori marginalisation is self-serving nonsense. A recent government report estimated the total value of Maori corporate assets at a whopping $37 billion. Thanks to the generosity of New Zealand taxpayers, the Maori aristocracy has become very rich, and is getting richer. Maori leaders could use their vast resources to lift the performance and aspirations of their people. They choose not to. “

Waiting for the usual chip on shoulder cringe pc set to do the usual in defense of their wallets….But maybe the taniwhas just a worm due for turning.

Thanks to reader Graham for alerting me to the NBR.

Published in:

on August 14, 2011 at 1:27 am Comments (3)

Out of the frying pan into the fridge: the hysterical record of climate change

Since Queen Victoria’s time, climate “scientists” have been telling us climate change was going to kill us. But they keep changing their minds on whether we’re going to fry or freeze.

The media, of course, are happy either way, as long as they can scare us into reading all about it.

Read this timeline and weep — or steam. (Blue you freeze, red you fry.)

It’s nearly all from the interesting site But Now You Know — The Search for Truth in Human Action .

The Ever-Changing Climate Change Timeline

1895
Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again
New York Times

1902
Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with
a persistency that means their final annihilation…
scientific fact…surely disappearing.
Los Angeles Times

1912
Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age
New York Times

1923
Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada
Chicago Tribune

That scientist was Professor Gregory of Yale University, the US representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress.

1923
The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the
southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given
rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age
Washington Post

1924
MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age
New York Times

1929
Is another ice age coming?
Los Angeles Times

1932
“If these things be true, it is evident,
therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age”
The Atlantic
This Cold, Cold World

1933
America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776;
Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise
New York Times

So now they claim global warming’s been going on for 25 years. Yet for that whole 25 years, they were warning of an ice age.

1933
“…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward
warmer weather…Is our climate changing?”
Federal Weather Bureau

1938
“Global warming, caused by man heating the planet
with carbon dioxide “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind
in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”
Royal Meteorological Society

1938
“Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago
is in the front rank of thousands of cities throughout the world
which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward
warmer climate in the last two decades.”
Chicago Tribune

1939
“Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they
were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that
the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.”
Washington Post

1952
“…we have learned that the world has been
getting warmer in the last half century.”
New York Times

1954
“…winters are getting milder, summers drier.
Glaciers are receding, deserts growing.”
U.S. News and World Report

1954
Climate – the Heat May Be Off
Fortune

1959
“Arctic Findings in Particular Support
Theory of Rising Global Temperatures”
New York Times

1969
“…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that
the ocean at the North Pole may become
an open sea within a decade or two”
New York Times

1969
“If I were a gambler, I would take even money
that England will not exist in the year 2000″
Paul Ehrlich

(Erlich now predicts doom from global warming, so this
quote gets an honorable mention, even though he was
talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)

1970
“…get a good grip on your long johns, cold
weather haters – the worst may be yet to
come…there’s no relief in sight”
Washington Post

1974
Global cooling for the past forty years
Time

Huh? But for just about all of the previous forty years (whizz back to 1934) they’d been saying the earth was getting hotter!

1974
“Climatological Cassandras are becoming
increasingly apprehensive, for the weather
aberrations they are studying may be
the harbinger of another ice age.”
Washington Post

1974
“As for the present cooling trend a number of leading
climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed”
Fortune
(Winner of a Science Writing Award
from the American Institute of Physics
for its analysis of the danger)

1974
“…the facts of the present climate change are such that
the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty
to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation,
and probably anarchy and violence.”
New York Times

1975
Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing;
A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable
New York Times

1975
“The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside
nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death
and misery for mankind.”
Nigel Calder
Editor, New Scientist
in International Wildlife

1976
“Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend”
U.S. News and World Report

1979
The Cooling of America
Time

1981
Global Warming “of an almost unprecedented magnitude”
New York Times

1988
“I would like to draw three main conclusions.

“Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than
at any time in the history of instrumental measurements.

“Number two, the global warming is now large enough that
we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause
and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.

“And number three, our computer climate simulations
indicate that the greenhouse effect is already large
enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme
events such as summer heat waves.”
Jim Hansen
Testimony before Congress
(For context, see His later quote
and His superior’s objection)

1989
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound
to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must
include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts.

“On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human
beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world
a better place, which in this context translates into our working
to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.

“To do that we need to get some broad based support, to
capture the public’s imagination. That, of course,
means getting loads of media coverage.

“So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make
simplified, dramatic statements, and make
little mention of any doubts we might have.

“This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find
ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula.

“Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.
I hopethat means being both.”
Stephen Schneider
Lead author
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Discover

1990
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory
of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing –
in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Senator Timothy Wirth

1993
“Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall
patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain
consequences for agriculture.”
U.S. News and World Report

1998
No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . .
climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity
to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart
Canadian Minister of the Environment
Calgary Herald

2001
“Scientists no longer doubt that global warming
is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact
that humans are at least partly responsible.”
Time

2003
“Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been
appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-
makers were relatively unaware of the global warming
issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil
and tar sands were receiving strong consideration”
Jim Hansen
NASA global warming activist
Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?

2006
“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation
of factual presentations on how dangerous it is,
as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to
what the solutions are, and how hopeful
it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”
Al Gore
Grist

2006
BE WORRIED. BE VERY WORRIED.
Climate change isn’t some vague future problem — it’s
already damaging the planet at an alarming pace.
Time

Now: The global mean temperature has fallen for four years in a row, which is why you stopped hearing details about the actual global temperature, even while they carry on about taxing you to deal with it…how long before they start predicting an ice age?

The actual Global Warming Advocates’ chart, overlayed on the
“climate change” hysterics of the past 120 years. Not only is it
clear that they take any change and claim it’s going to go on
forever and kill everyone, but notice that they even
sometimes get the short-term trend wrong.

Of course NOW they are talking about the earth “warming for
the past century”, again ignoring that they spent much of
that century claiming we were entering an ice age.

The fact is that the mean temperature of the planet is,
and should be, always wavering up or down, a bit,
because this is a natural world, not a climate-controlled office.

So there will always be some silly bureaucrat, in his air-
conditioned ivory tower, who looks at which way it’s
going right now, draws up a chart as if this is permanent,
realizes how much fear can increase his funding, and proclaims
doom for all of humanity.

2006
“It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming
over the past century. The earth is always warming or cooling,
at least a few tenths of a degree…”
Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology
MIT

2006
“What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary
school science. Climate always changes. It is always…
warming or cooling, it’s never stable. And if it were stable,
it would actually be interesting scientifically because it
would be the first time for four and a half billion years.”
Philip Stott
Emeritus professor of bio-geography
University of London

2006
“Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling
and warming scares during four separate and sometimes
overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930′s the media
peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920′s until the 1960′s
they warned of global warming. From the 1950′s until the 1970′s
they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern
global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote
opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.”
Senator James Inhofe

2007
“I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and
three members of the Canadian government, the environmental
cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you,
but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So what’s being
created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of
government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.”
Dr. Tim Ball
Coast-to-Coast

2008
“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s
official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did
not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s
effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming
out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his
testimony before Congress”
Dr. John S. Theon
Retired Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program
NASA

$Next time you see the usual "global warming" chart, look carefully: it is in tiny fractions of one degree. The ENTIRE global warming is less than six tenths of one degree. Here is the Global Warming Advocates' own chart, rendered in actual degrees like sane people use. I was going to use 0-100 like a thermometer, but you end up with almost a flat line, so I HELPED the Climate Change side by making the temperature range much narrower.$

Next time you see the usual “global warming” chart, look
carefully: it is in tiny fractions of one degree. The ENTIRE
global warming is less than six tenths of one degree.

Here is the Global Warming Advocates’ own chart,
rendered in actual degrees like sane people use.
I was going to use 0-100 like a thermometer,
but you end up with almost a flat line, so I HELPED
the Climate Change side by making the temperature
range much narrower, and the chart needlessly
tall to stretch the up-down differences in the line.

JA: I made this other picture as a variation on the one at the top:

Published in:

on August 13, 2011 at 1:24 am Comments (8)

What would Maggie have done with the rioters?

BERJAYA

After the pathetic response by British authorities to the riots, I can’t help wonder what Margaret Thatcher would have done in David Cameron’s shoes.

A lot more than talk tough, I bet.

She’d have had those watercannons and rubber bullets on the streets faster than you could say Arthur Scargill.

This is what she said at the time of the miners’ strike:

“What we have got is an attempt to substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of law, and it must not succeed. It must not succeed. There are those who are using violence and intimidation to impose their will on others who do not want it. The rule of law must prevail over the rule of the mob.”

And again, casting the miners as unpatriotic:

“We had to fight the enemy without in the Falklands. We always have to be aware of the enemy within, which is much more difficult to fight and more dangerous to liberty”.

By the way, did you know Scargill’s strike was funded by the KGB?

After his Wellington talk, Lord Monckton was telling us about his time with Thatcher, and how the government were tracking Scargill travelling round the Soviet Union collecting money and instructions.

Published in:

on August 12, 2011 at 10:33 pm Comments (4)

Appeaser-General to compensate cannibal’s tribe for loss of South Island dining rights

Appeaser-General Chris Finlayson wants to pay the descendants of Te Rauparaha $10 million of your money for the loss of their right to capture, kill and cannibalise the Maori of the South Island.

In the words of Dr John Robinson in his book The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy — A Treaty Overview:

Mr Finlayson has made an offer for a Treaty settlement to Ngati Toa, which includes a payment of $40 million, plus $10 million in recognition of Ngati Toa’s former marine empire, $6.31 million for capacity building and an additional amount of $100,000 as claimant funding (the Government also promised to support applications for resourcing from the Crown Forestry Rental Trust).

Ah yes, the CFRT — the agency that refused to pay Robinson for his research on Maori depopulation until he’d reversed his conclusion to echo their politically-correct view of history.

But how intriguing that Ngati Toa possessed a ‘marine empire’ — presumably patrolled by a blue-water navy. And not exactly for peacekeeping purposes, as we shall discover in a future post.

And how intriguing that the supposedly Honourable Chris Finlayson intends to give $10 million of your money to Ngati Toa for the loss of this marine empire?

I know Chris Finlayson. We were on good terms until I realised that he, along with John Key, were traitors intent upon giving my country back to its former owners, with no payment for improvements.

He is also a master lawyer and self-styled champion of plain English. He has the skills to say exactly what he means with deadly precision. When he wants to.

But this time — as with so many of his pronouncements on matters Maori — he doesn’t want to. So I’ll say it for him.

By ‘loss of Ngati Toa’s marine empire’, Finlayson means the loss of the right of these Taranaki invaders (who wiped out the tribe that had been here for centuries) to paddle across Cook Strait and slaughter, enslave and feast upon the South Island Maori.

Compensating the descendants of their chief cannibal, Te Rauparaha (whose depraved devourings earns him a separate post), for the loss of that right is going to cost you and me $10 million.

And that’s just the appetiser for a much larger Ngati Toa claim.

As part of the package developed to recognise Ngati Toa’s maritime empire, the Crown offers to explore the development of a redress instrument that recognises Ngati Toa’s role as Kaitiaki of Cook Strait and the coastal marine area in Port Underwood and Pelorus Sound… and supports Ngati Toa in developing a statutory plan articulating Ngati Toa’s values in relation to these areas.

While most of us cast our vote and make submissions, the Ngati Toa extended family will have the right to prepare management and planning documents — all because of the warfare of ancestors 190 years ago.

And not just warfare. Also the cruellest imaginable slavery and cannibalism — including the eating of women and children.

And for these despicable acts, plus wrongs done to them by the evil white man that Finlayson has yet to reveal (or should that be invent?) the tribe is to be rewarded. By you.

It is strange and indeed corrupt to make such a generous offer of taxpayers’ money without settling the grounds for the complaint.

As I wrote at the time to the Minister, “The situation as I understand it is in contradiction to common sense and logic. Surely there would be no consideration of a settlement in the absence of a clearly specified wrong.”

Surely not? Yet that’s exactly what’s happening. Finlayson wants to pay $10 million of your money to a tribe for no reason he is prepared to divulge.

Here the truth of what happened in a past century is not to be determined by historians in an open and public debate, but written by the aggrieved party, about to profit from a settlement based on a biased interpretation, behind closed doors and after the settlement is agreed.

Again in the words of Minister Finlayson, “The Ngati Toa historical account is being negotiated concurrently with the rest of the Ngati Toa settlement and will be agreed before the deed of settlement is signed… All settlement redress, including the historical account, is confidential while under negotiation.”

You read correctly. Your head lawyer is rewriting the tribe’s history with the tribe, behind closed doors, in order to concoct a reason to pay the tribe with your money for something your forefathers almost certainly did not do to their forefathers.

What kind of an idiot is Chris Finlayson? Answer: a ‘useful idiot’.

But look at this next bit:

Even the very little information available shows that the basis of the settlement is wrong. The claimed maritime empire never existed. This was made clear by the Waitangi Tribunal:

“We consider the idea of a sustained ’overlordship’ to have little basis in Maori customary thinking. … the idea of an overlordship is now seen as the legacy of an imperial rhetoric.”

So even the ridiculously pro-Maori Waitangi Tribunal does not agree with the Appeaser-General that Ngati Toa possessed a blue water navy.

The Maori had the great luck that the colonial power was 19th century Great Britain.

Damn right they did. Imagine if they’d run into the Spaniards. Or the Belgians.

Or, worse, if the tables had been turned and the Maoris had colonised Britain. Imagine that. Would they have treated with the inhabitants — or on them?

(Remember the Taranaki tribes’ discourteous response to being welcomed ashore by the peace-loving Moriori in the Chathams – to capture, enslave or exterminate all but a few of their hosts.)

The concept of citizenship developed through the Cromwell revolution, the Glorious Revolution, the French and American revolutions, and the calls to end slavery (which succeeded across the British Empire in 1833) had become accepted.

The British, like all races, had a bloodthirsty history. But by 1840, they’d put their piracy and slavery behind them.

British politicians and the Colonial Office wanted to work with other peoples and respect their rights. Article Three of the Treaty of Waitangi promises that equality.

That promise of equal rights by the then-greatest civilisation on earth to a population of Stone Age tribesmen was evidence that the British, far from being the bully boys of modern myth, were in fact the most compassionate of colonisers.

But equality is nowhere near good enough for the Maori leaders of today. They quite sensibly prefer the reverse takeover model — especially as our leaders seem dumb enough to give it to them.

This should be the clear basis for constitutional reform if the country is to move forward together, 170 years later.

Instead there are continuing claims, and settlements, based on bloodthirsty conquest. The example of the fate of the Chatham Islanders is not unique.

The Moriori paid a high price for appeasing the Maori. As will we if the relentless Maorification of our institutions continues.

In the case that has interested me particularly here, concerning the south Wellington coast, we find that Ngati Toa showed no respect for Ngati Ira’s love of the land, customary title or wahi tapu.

They killed them, enslaved them, and drove them out.

Now their descendants demand the rights that were denied the former inhabitants of this land.

Words change their meaning. Culture, tikanga, changes with time as well as differing between tribes. Wahi tapu is said to refer to a few artefacts but is then called upon to justify control of the whole Kaipara Harbour.

And of course Kaipara Maori are using wahi tapu as an excuse to block the installation of power turbines on the harbour floor. No doubt greasing the iwi’s palm with the appropriate bribe will quiet the upset spirits.

Tangata whenua once was established by living in a place so that after just ten years in Wellington Te Atiawa could claim ownership and the right to sell that land.

Ngati Toa and Te Atiawa only arrived in Wellington two decades and one decade, respectively, before the settlers. And yet they demand compensation of many millions of dollars.

Now those who have lived their whole lives in a place, even for several generations, both Maori and non-Maori, are refused that status, which is claimed by descendants of the temporary residents of 1840, no matter where they now live.

Dr Robinson gets to the heart of the matter here:

The focus is no longer on a search for the truth. History is reinterpreted and reinvented to suit political aims. Historical accounts may even be omitted when making settlements, or written by the complainant behind closed doors, out of view of the public whose money and land are being handed over.

It’s time to expose the Maorification scammers, starting with the Appeaser-General who has made it all so very possible.

I’ll be blogging on this and more in due course.

You will read of the astonishing lengths to which Finlayson went to avoid saying the word ‘free’ when pressed by ACT’s David Garrett about public access to beaches during the Marine and Coastal Areas debate.

You will read gory evidence of what a depraved beast was Te Rauparaha, for whose crimes against humanity you will soon be asked to compensate his great-great grandchildren. (That’s right, you will be paying them.)

You will read about the true history of the Treaty of Waitangi, including its fraudulent reinvention in the 1980s that kick-started the Maorification scam.

By the time I’ve finished, the Treaty conmen will be thoroughly exposed, with no big words to hide behind.

For now, I suggest you get a copy of The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy – A Treaty Overview by John Robinson.

Published in:

on August 12, 2011 at 5:17 pm Comments (5)

New London Olympics logo

Thanks Mike for sending me this. Wish I’d thought of it!

Published in:

on August 11, 2011 at 6:21 pm Leave a Comment

Well done, DomPost

After hammering the Dominion Post on Close Up for banning my ACT ‘Maori radicals ad’ that contained 40 statements of truth, I’m pleased to be able to congratulate the paper for yesterday making these two letters their lead and second letters of the day:

Where does that ‘science’ definition leave Al Gore, then?

Lorna Sutherland’s comments (Letters, August 8) highlight an interesting attitude to democracy and proper science.

(That’s meant to say August 8. Of all the eccentric habits of WordPress, automatically turning the number eight followed by a close bracket into a smile takes the cake!)

Does she agree that her denial that Lord Monckton should be permitted a platform to discuss climate change extends to former United States vice- president Al Gore, who is similarly lacking expertise and experience in science?

Is she aware that Dr John Abraham’s comments on Lord Monckton are subject to critical comments about misrepresentation and falsehoods ?

By what measure would we ever give the Greens, Niwa’s Dr James Renwick or anybody else the right to decide what may be presented by any person on any subject in public?

Real science is proven by sceptical trial and debate. False science has hidden data, insufficient record of proof, and protection from open query and dissenting opinion.

Real science isn’t proven by so-called consensus, authority or taking someone’s word for it.

Is Ms Sutherland aware no peer- reviewed scientific proof appears to exist that climate change, warming or whatever is driven by human-induced carbon-dioxide emissions, and the theory is supported by conjecture only?

I suggest she take tuition on what it means to live in a democracy.

GRAHAM CLAYTON
Taupo

What have these people to fear?

Our climate change scientists and, maybe, politicians, seem to be running scared. They have refused to debate climate change with Lord Monckton because the matter is now agreed upon and settled among scientists. Really?

It was also said that to debate with him would give Lord Monckton and his unscientific ideas credibility. If our scientists’ views, which cost a lot of money, are so right, what have they to fear?

IRENE FAGAN
Island Bay

Well said, Graham and Irene.

Published in:

on August 11, 2011 at 3:36 pm Comments (1)

Monckton, Greenpeace, NASA and Nazis

This is a good video to watch if you want a quick insight into the sceptic side of the global warming debate.

You’ll see clips from The Great Global Warming Swindle, the movie featuring Greenpeace founder-turned-sceptic Patrick Moore, NASA scientist Roy Spencer and other eminent sceptics.

Then in the middle you’ll see Lord Christopher Monckton completely monstering (with logic) a noisy gang of young Climate Scientologists who were silly enough to disrupt his Copenhagen meeting.

Seizing upon the parallel with the bullying tactics of the Hitler Youth in the same city, he quickly gained a global audience by describing them as such.

When a Jewish member of the gang objects, Monckton front foots like a true Thatcherite. He tells the offended heckler that if he and his mates ares going to behave like the Hitler Youth, he’s going to keep calling him that.

(What a shame Monckton isn’t the Lord Mayor of London right now.)

This is all great sport, but in amongst it all is Monckton’s point:

Although these young hecklers are rude rather than murderous, There is a very real parallel between the green movement and evil regimes like the Nazis.

And that is the huge number of deaths from starvation being caused by food shortages, caused by rising food prices, caused by the conversion of food crops to biofuel.

The greenies never have an answer to that one. I made this little ad about it:

BERJAYA

This is the way to defeat the Left. Tell the graphic truth about how their pathological stupidity invariably hurts the people they make such a play of pretending to care about.

I want to start a ‘teach tank’ to put ads like this in front of the public.

Right-wing politicians have tried to bust the media blockade, but failed. Ads like this will cut through. If the media won’t run them, we just plaster them on poster sites.

They needn’t be big ads, but they do need to be plentiful, and regular. There are so many issues to cover.

Such a campaign, from a brand that becomes trusted for its clarity, will change the polarity of politics.

Now, who wants to fund it?

Published in:

on August 11, 2011 at 3:00 pm Comments (6)

If the IPCC was a corporation, its leaders would be in jail — Auditor

This interesting comment from auditor Mervyn Sullivan on the blog But Now You Know– The Search For Truth in Human Action. I’ll soon be posting my version of their Climate Change Timeline.

But for now, read this (I’ve bolded my three favourite lines):

As a professional auditor, I’m forever obtaining and evaluating evidence. I became interested in the climate debate because of Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”. So I decided to examine the evidence.

I have spent thousands of hours researching… to understand both sides to the climate debate (e.g. I went through the IPCC’s AR4 report, but I also went through the “Climate Change Reconsidered report by the NIPCC; I read books, blogs, magazines, research papers, authoritative web sites, and more).

Sounds like a thorough kind of guy. And what did he find?

I have come to the firm conclusion that nothing about our weather and climate is unprecedented. I have come to the conclusion that climate scientists still need to learn so much more about earth’s complex chaotic climate system before they can be so bold as to claim that CO2 is the key driver of catastrophic man-made global warming and climate change, or that certain weather events have been caused by man-made global warming. I have also learnt that predicting weather beyond say a couple of weeks is too difficult, and on that basis, predicting future climate is simply impossible.

Climate is average weather, is it not?

I have not found any persuasive evidence that proves CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming or even driving climate change as claimed by the IPCC… there is no empirical evidence supporting this view.

I have come to the conclusion that the evidence is stronger in support of the idea that our climate is driven by numerous complex factors involving, for example, solar magnetic activity, cosmic rays, cloud formation, lunar position, and ocean currents.

Just as the sceptical climate scientists have been saying.

I also think the Central England Temperature record is probably a reliable temperature proxy record to work off. It shows no evidence of any runaway global warming since the mid 1600s.

I wonder if this news has reached East Anglia. (As in the University of). But here’s his killer finding:

If I had to issue an audit opinion on the IPCC AR4 report, it would have to be a disclaimer opinion. In fact, I would go so far as to state that if the IPCC AR4 report were subject to the same standards of accountability as under corporations legislation, the IPCC members would probably be facing jail sentences for releasing misleading information to the public, and grossly deceiving the public by claiming its report was based only on peer reviewed scientific literature (the best science) when in reality, approximately 30% of the 18,500+ citations are now known to have related to “grey literature” such as articles by campaigning organizations like WWF and Greenpeace… which are not even close to being peer reviewed scientific literature.

Surely the United Nations wouldn’t really parrot left-wing propaganda? And surely — despite one of its head honchos being Helen Clark — it’s not really using eco-catastrophism as a pretext for socialist world government?

What I have also learnt from my research is that the climate change debate has become over-politicized to the point that it now overrides real climate science. It’s now all about regulating and taxing ‘carbon’ to fix an imaginary future problem. To even think that certain people could assume that humans could tame and control the weather and climate, Mother Nature, demonstrates the madness on the part of some, in relation to this debate over man-made global warming.

Comment by Mervyn Sullivan | February 9, 2011 @ 06:48 |

Now at this point, of course, our resident warm-mongers Judge Holden and David Winter will immediately leap in to somehow blacken this auditor’s name. (The Green Party Black Ops Manual on the Flaming and Defaming of Heretics offers a host of plausible smears.)

And I can’t defend him, because I have no idea who, where, or how good an auditor, Mervyn Sullivan is.

Nonetheless, I thought you might find it interesting to hear from a man who spends his life sifting truth from lies.

Published in:

Uncategorized

on August 11, 2011 at 1:02 pm Comments (6)

To socialist-pessimists from capitalist-optimists: Cheer up!

A word to all you red-green (and, of late, yellow) malcontents who infest the comments section of this blog with your relentless nit-picking and overweaning planetary pessimism.

Whether you like it or not, guys, (and I know you don’t), you are members of a species with a stellar record of problem-solving.

I’m very sorry to have to say that, but the optimists among us (AKA capitalists) just keep dreaming up ways to make our lives better and better.

Including yours. Have you noticed? I guess not. It’s not really in your interests to look.

Despite the best efforts of communism and socialism (which I call Applied Pessimism), not to mention eco-pessimism (Applied Pessimism for Profit), things are getting better on this planet all the time.

If you think it’s not, ask yourself: which time and place in history would you like to be transported back to? (When some clever capitalist develops the inevitable time machine, I’m sure that can be arranged.)

When you’re back there in your colonial house or pre-colonial whare, liberated from annoyances like electricity and motor cars and vaccines and flush toilets — as you contemplate your new-found squalor and imminent demise – you may start to feel that life in the 21st century wasn’t so bad after all.

You may be forced to concede that all those gizmos you used to take for granted came to you via the evil capitalist Industrial Revolution and the fertile minds of geniuses with incentives.

As we speak, all over the Third World, that same reprehensible system of market capitalism is lifting millions out of poverty in former socialist-pessimist societies like China and India.

Like it or not, capitalism has been doing this now for 200 years. Have a look at Hans Rosling’s beautiful moving graph of the Health and Wealth of Nations and you’ll see which nations have gone ahead the fastest — and which haven’t.

And you’ll see that all nations are healthier than they were in 1800. And all but a few corrupt African basket cases are wealthier.

You can’t stand the idea of that, can you? Especially as all your doomsday prophesies never quite complete the journey from wishful theory to reality.

The history of Western civilisation in recent times has been one of relentless, inspiring and beneficial progress.

Yet always you gloom-mongers would have us believe that all we hold dear is about to collapse.

Either it’s our economic system, or our health, or the computer system, or the climate and life as we know it.

The disgraceful thing is how you’re quite happy to frighten the children to further your goals.

But you don’t frighten the grown-ups. That’s because people who’ve been round the clock a few times recognise your tactics. We’ve noticed how most of these scares can be avoided with the payment of a large amount of money to some socialist cause.

Meanwhile society, fueled by capitalism fueled by optimism, advances regardless of your wishes. The rich get richer. And so, as long as their governments aren’t corrupt, do the poor.

So how about dropping your absurd addiction to socialism-pessimism and drink to the good times (ie the last 200 years)?

Your latest crisis of convenience is global warming. Sadly for you, many, if not most, people now agree this is an eco-socialist-pessimist plot to transport us en-masse back to your colonial house.

That’s because, despite all the efforts of the socialist brainwashing factory that purports to be the state education system, these people have somehow retained the capacity for joined-up thinking. You should try it.

Instead of creating diversions and parroting the party line about whether Monckton is qualified to make the sense he makes, how about doing the unthinkable and thinking for yourselves?

Yes I know it sounds an odd thing to suggest.

But how about actually watching his debate with Tim Lambert and making up your own mind?

You can do it in the privacy of your own home, so the Church of Climate Scientology doesn’t have to know.

And you don’t have to worry that Tim doesn’t hold your end up, because he does. He argues his case well. You may even conclude that he won the debate. Or you may be persuaded by Monckton. That’s what an open mind is for.

So have a look. Assess them both on their merits. With your eyepatch off.

And afterwards, if you feel like it, tell me what you thought.

Meantime, I’m raising my glass (which is a lot more than half-full) to my ingenious species and the continued success of capitalism-optimism.

Tip for right-wing political marketers everywhere:

Our philosophy of freedom and free markets is, above all, the philosophy of optimism. So: own it. Move voters 5% to the right by embracing optimism and optimists as the antidote to socialism and pessimists.

(Note to Nats: optimism does not mean managing socialism with a smile. )

Published in:

on August 10, 2011 at 6:03 pm Comments (7)

The real reason the Greens chickened out of debating Monckton

You may have heard the Greens trumpeting their principled decision not to debate global warming sceptic Lord Monckton.

You may not have heard that they discovered their principles only after seeing this video of Monckton debating scientist Tim Lambert in a more tolerant land called Australia:

Before they saw this video, they were happy for their climate spokesman, Kennedy Graham, to accept Monckton’s challenge.

After they saw it, they were not. They pulled out.

Not because they didn’t want to dignify him. (Ever heard of a politician turning down a chance to humiliate a high-value opponent – especially one so supposedly inept?)

No. They pulled out because they knew they weren’t going to win. They were either going to lose or — just as damaging to their claim that the science is settled — draw.

It wasn’t his showmanship they were afraid of. It was his facts.

And what was the fact they were most scared of exposing to the light? What was the truth they were terrified of the public finding out?

That Monckton is clearly not the nutter they’ve been pretending he is.

When you see the debate, you’ll see that his grasp of the science is every bit as credible as that of the scientist he’s debating. You might even think moreso.

But the point is, to make his point he doesn’t have to be more credible. Only as credible.

The proposition before us is that the science is settled.

Settled in favour of global warming being a huge crisis that we need to rectify immediately by diverting trillions of dollars from otherwise productive activities.

That’s the line we’ve been fed. That’s what the Greens would have us believe. That’s why we’re saddled with an ETS.

And that’s why the poor are struggling to cope with higher food prices and higher petrol prices and higher most other prices.

That’s the sacred gospel of the Church of Climate Scientology that gets non-believers branded deniers or denialists – modern-day heretics.

And that, I think you’ll agree after watching this debate, is a myth. One that Monckton, among others, has busted.

I suggest you watch it from start to finish. It’s 1 hour 53 minutes — 15 You Tube videos — but worth it.

The moderator is sceptic and former Wallaby coach Alan Jones. He occasionally makes his bias clear, but is otherwise fair.

I think it’s a good scrap. Lambert is less polished than Monckton. (Aren’t we all?). But after a nervous start, he makes his points well.

Monckton, when challenged, is assured in his rebuttals, and both men answer each others’ probing questions pretty well.

It’s a debate everyone should see. It’s just a shame that New Zealand’s red-green-yellow politicians, scientists and journalists do not possess the courage of their convictions to allow the public to examine both sides of this supposedly crucial issue.

How disgraceful that a government would steal people’s money to avert what they claim is a crisis, then refuse to debate its reasons in public.

Not only that, but it empowers its employees to brand anyone who asks it to do so as the modern equivalent of a witch.

(Thank Gaia for the blogosphere!)

Published in:

on August 9, 2011 at 1:40 pm Comments (13)

Correction to percentages in previous post

Thanks to the two readers who pointed out that my percentages in the previous post about the ethnic split of the Constitutional Advisory Panel totalled 109% and 110%.

Just seeing if you’re awake. Now fixed.

While my school maths results prove that I’m quite capable of making computational errors unaided, this time I had help from the Ministry of Social Development, whose census stats I copied accurately.

Seems they’d bundled up Other and ‘New Zealanders’ under European. Also 10% of people identified with more than one race.

Anyway I trust the revised split of 68% European, 15% Maori, 9% Asian, 7% Pacific and 1% other is about right and adds up to 100%.

Of course, the point of my post remains the same.

Sorry about the error.

Published in:

Constitutional Advisory Panel

on August 9, 2011 at 12:10 am Comments (3)

	Mary Hand on Time for a Colourblind St…
	Trina on Time for a Colourblind St…
	Hari on Time for a Colourblind St…
	Hari on The Treaty, beautifully explai…
	Hari on The Treaty, beautifully explai…

Apr	MAY	Jun
	09
2011	2012	2013

Truth matters

– STOP PRESS –

HOBSON’S FINAL DRAFT FOUND

The Adversary Culture

Beware sting in taniwha’s tail

The Ever-Changing Climate Change Timeline

Where does that ‘science’ definition leave Al Gore, then?

What have these people to fear?

Pages

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Archives

Email Subscription

Follow “John Ansell”