Non-iwi Kiwis: don't count on Coddington
by John Ansell
I was concerned about the implications of the racist stacking of the Constitutional Advisory Panel.
So I emailed the one panellist I thought I could count on to stand up for 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?
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?
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?
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?
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:
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,
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?
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.