PREPARING THE PARROTS: A TRAINING COLLEGE GRADUATE ON THE CULTURAL CORRUPTION OF TEACHERS

The ethically-cleansed, ethnically compliant
New Zealand teacher.

The following story made my blood boil.

It needs to be put in front of everyone who cares about the education of our children.

It’s about the cultural brainwashing programme that has turned every New Zealand teacher into a propaganda parrot for primitivism.

It’s the account of a new teacher who, alone in his year group, had the guts to stand up to his training college indoctrinators.

As you may discern from his writing, he’s a highly literate and learned young man. He’s also been a nationally-ranked sportsman.

Yet despite sending his stellar CV to around a hundred New Zealand schools, he was granted the sum total of one interview — and no job.

Forced to conclude that his preference for truth, civilisation and racial equality has made him a pariah to the pinko, pagan-worshipping, West-hating educational elite in his homeland, last Saturday he boarded a plane to go teaching in a country that values his knowledge more highly.

The following are his words. The pictures and captions are mine.

________________________________________

CRITIQUE OF NEW ZEALAND’S
TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTES

By A Teacher In Exile

As a recent graduate in secondary teaching, I have been invited to share my experiences of the teacher training I received.

I shall describe the cultural indoctrination to which trainee teachers are subjected and the flow-on effect this has on school culture and classroom learning.

I am aware of the risks involved in taking this action (my lecturers and classmates should have little trouble identifying me), but I hope that my example will encourage other teachers (and trainee teachers) to come forth and share their own experiences.

It is important that readers of this blog understand the hoops that trainee teachers are forced to jump through, and the limits on freedom of thought that are imposed from above.

Education has always been the battlefield on which culture wars are fought, and if we are to avoid a future of cultural separatism in this country, it is imperative that we end the systematic indoctrination of teachers and students.

THE INTERVIEW

Before one is accepted into a teacher training programme, it is necessary to attend an interview conducted by the teaching staff.

In every interview, applicants are asked about their relationship to the Treaty of Waitangi, and their loyalty to ‘treaty principles’.

“There is something vaguely inquisitional
about the framing of these questions.”

There is something vaguely inquisitional about the framing of these questions, and suspicion falls upon any applicant who diverts from the official line.

In my interview, I circumvented these questions by declaring myself an internationalist.

(The confused expression on the faces of my left-leaning interviewers betrayed their cognitive dissonance: internationalism used to be a left-wing principle.)

I affirmed that all human beings are members of the human race, and that pigeonholing individuals into sub-groups does more harm than good.

(Further underscoring the contradictions in their own thought, the interviewers agreed with me that pigeonholing Maori is indeed harmful.)

At the conclusion of the interview, I was thanked for my honesty; but as subsequent events would demonstrate, there are limits to how much honesty these people are willing to tolerate.

THE INDUCTION

The first day at a teacher training institute is not unlike one’s first day at school: strange, bewildering and slightly intimidating.

Maori culture is very much to the fore, as Maori songs are learnt and sung, and mihis are taught in special workshops. (We were encouraged to take our mihis into the schools and to deliver them before staff during our placements.)

“This veneer of bicultural identity masks
something much more sinister.”

A trip to a local marae is customary, and in some cases, trainee teachers will stay in the marae overnight. A Maori elder conducts the usual ceremonies and formalities, addressing the trainee teachers in English and Maori.

In my year, the appointed speaker was an affable fellow who officially pronounced us “tangata whenua”. I am not sure what authority he possessed to make this pronouncement, but I very much doubt that it would hold up in the Waitangi Tribunal.

All of this may seem fairly harmless, and even fun, in a naïve, let’s-all-pretend-to-be-Maori kind of way. Many of my classmates certainly viewed it that way.

However, as lectures commenced, it became apparent that this veneer of bicultural identity masks something much more sinister.

‘TREATY PRINCIPLES’ AND THE CURRICULUM

Within our education system, the New Zealand Curriculum enjoys the status of a revealed text, and ‘treaty principles’ constitute the moral code. (Commandments, if you will.)

Reminiscent of the worst totalitarian dictatorships,
only trainees prepared to parrot the state’s primitivist
dogma are permitted to teach New Zealand children.

In innumerable essays that are written throughout the year, trainee teachers must refer back to the New Zealand Curriculum and endorse the Vision, Principles, Values, Key Competencies and Pedagogy contained within.

References to ‘treaty principles’ abound in these sections of the curriculum.

Under Principles, it is stated that

“The curriculum acknowledges the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and the bicultural foundations of Aotearoa New Zealand.”

The Vision is defined as one in which

“young people work to create an Aotearoa New Zealand in which Maori and Pakeha recognise each other as full Treaty partners.”

And it is further claimed that the curriculum

“will help schools give effect to the partnership that is at the core of our nation’s founding document.”

Woe betide any trainee teacher who points out that the word ‘partnership’ does not appear in the Treaty of Waitangi.

[Or that the Principles of the Treaty were invented in 1989, and the name ‘Aotearoa New Zealand’ only relatively recently. (The Maori name for New Zealand in the 1840 Treaty was Nu Tirani, while Aotearoa meant the North Island until well into the 20th century.) – JA]

PROTECTION OF THE MAORI LANGUAGE

The New Zealand Curriculum asserts that

“all students will have the opportunity to acquire some knowledge of Maori language and culture.”

A supporting document produced by the NZ Teachers Council – the New Zealand Graduating Teacher Standards – sets out the following condition:

“graduating teachers are required to have knowledge of tikanga and te reo Maori to work effectively within the bicultural contexts of Aotearoa New Zealand.”

The Maorification of tag.

In written essays, trainee teachers must provide examples of how they will incorporate Maori language (and concepts) into their lessons.

In one of my set readings, it was argued that the tag game “stuck-in-the-mud” throws up

“an opportunity to be culturally inclusive (partnership) by providing the vehicle to openly discuss (participation) sensitivities such as tapu (sacredness) and in doing so acknowledges the nexus between Maori and Pakeha.”

Scholarly writing of such low-level, cringe-making quality is typical of many of the texts that trainee teachers are forced to read and to quote from.

I also remember having to respond to an article advocating the compulsory teaching of te reo Maori.

BISHOP OF WAIKATO

Woolly-woofterism at its wacky Waikatoey worst.

The three ‘R’s that are taught in our teacher training institutes are ‘Read,’ ‘Revere’ and ‘Regurgitate’.

This is especially true in the case of Waikato University Professor of Maori Education Russell Bishop: a crashing charlatan whose academic output is a staple of the current teacher training programmes.

Every trainee teacher must study Bishop’s ‘Culturally Responsive Pedagogy of Relations,’ which informs both the Te Kotahitanga Effective Teaching Profile and the Tataiako Cultural Competencies for Teachers of Maori Learners document.

Bishop claims that the guiding idea of his life’s work is encapsulated in the following quote:

“This then is the great humanistic and historical task of the oppressed: to liberate themselves and their oppressors as well.

The oppressors, who oppress, exploit and rape by virtue of their power, cannot find in this power the strength to liberate either the oppressed or themselves.

Only power that springs from the weakness of the oppressed will be sufficiently strong to free both.”

                                                                     – Paolo Freire

And who pays this Bishop for his nonsensical,
sopping wet sermons?  You do.

In essence, Bishop’s contribution is the development of a race-based pedagogy built around a series of Maori metaphors.

It posits that Maori students learn differently from their non-Maori peers, and must therefore be taught differently: “as culturally-located human beings.”

Educational underachievement among Maori is attributed to negative student-teacher relations, and something called ‘deficit theory’: low expectations of Maori learners based on negative cultural stereotypes.

Echoing Paolo Freire’s great insight, Bishop coined the following slogan for his culturally-responsive pedagogy:

 “what is good for everyone is not always good for Maori; but what is good for Maori is good for everyone.”

(Could the subtext be any more obvious?)

As I would learn, anybody who dares to challenge this kind of sophistry is soon brought to heel.

The following story clearly demonstrates that one must subscribe to a race-based political ideology if one is to have any hope of gaining teacher registration in New Zealand.

QUASHING DISSENT

One of the essays that I had to write concerned the ‘roles and responsibilities of teachers and learners in the New Zealand classroom.’

The learning outcomes for this essay centred on biculturalism, te reo Maori and the historical, political, social and cultural influences on New Zealand schools.

Failure to satisfy the requirements for any one of these learning outcomes would necessitate a re-submission, and failure on the second attempt would mean failure for the course.

Frustrated by the indoctrination to which I had been subjected, I wrote critically about many of the issues we were expected to cover.

My intention was not to be provocative or incendiary, but to assess the issues in an objective, thoughtful and reasoned way.

When my essay was returned to me, I was shocked to discover that I had been given the lowest possible grade.

Even more distressing were the spiteful comments that appeared in the margin of my essay, accusing me of “monocultural ignorance” and of being “patronizing.”

The marker’s tone was defensive and censorial, as if I had no right to hold the views that I had expressed.

What follows is an excerpt from my essay in which I critically evaluate the Tataiako Cultural Competencies.

“The Tataiako Cultural Competencies for Teachers of Maori Learners document lays out a number of competencies that teachers should aim to achieve:

• Wananga: participating with learners and communities
• Whanaungatanga: actively engaging in respectful relationships with  Maori learners, parents and whanau, hapu, iwi and the Maori community
• Manaakitanga: showing integrity, sincerity and respect towards Maori beliefs, language and culture
• Tangata Whenuatanga: affirming Maori learners as Maori
• Ako: taking responsibility for their own learning and that of Maori learners

Though articulated with specific reference to Maori, one would like to believe that these cultural competencies are reducible to basic moral principles that are in fact universal.

Any decent, fair-minded, morally functional human being ought to know instinctively how to treat somebody of another culture; it would be an insult to our integrity to suggest otherwise.

Certainly, there is much in the Tataiako document of a highly questionable nature – nebulous language that conceals some very woolly thinking.

The glorification of Maori knowledge, and the attendant accusation against ‘Eurocentric’ education, should be taken with a grain of salt.

We should take heed of the request by the Maori petitioners to share with their young the fruits and the glories of Western learning.

These Maori elders understood the value of reason, science and Enlightenment principles, and they understood that a retreat into primitivism, tribalism and superstition would be detrimental to the Maori people.

As teachers, we may have a duty to people, or groups of people, but we also have a duty to truth, and to neglect this duty would be a supreme act of cowardice.”

A heretical suggestion which the examiner
forced the brave trainee teacher to rewrite.

In the margin beside this paragraph, the marker comments:

“I think you are on questionable ground yourself here, and once again your tone implies a monocultural ignorance.”

 When I complained to the Programme Leader that I had been penalised for holding contrarian views, and that the department was not upholding the university’s policy of freedom of thought, she defended her colleague in casuistic fashion:

“My reading of your assignment and [the marker’s] comments was that [the marker] was at times offering a different perspective from yours.

Staff are mindful that this programme serves as a preparation for teaching, and that our graduates must be able to meet the graduating teaching standards, and therefore on occasions do provide a different point of view.” 

(Note the way that she cloaks this statement of mandatory compliance in the language of diversity and relativism.)

My essay was re-marked by another staff member, who faulted me for not “discussing the place of te reo Maori or tikanga in either science or English,” and for using “emotive language” in the phrase “the fruits and glories of Western learning.”

Of course much of te reo Maori
is simply Maorified English.

The grotesque quest for cultural relativity.

I was forced to resubmit the essay, exactly as they wanted it, expunged of all signs of a critical intellect.

It is a terrible thing to be conscripted into writing something that you do not believe, and for this to occur in a university environment is completely unacceptable.

All New Zealand teachers must be certified
culturally safe by the Treatifarian Thought Police.

THE SILENT MAJORITY

 As far as I know, I was the only trainee teacher in my year to clash with the department over an ideological difference of opinion.

I know from conversation with my classmates that there were others who shared my misgivings about biculturalism and treaty principles, but in essays and online forums, these people were happy to toe the treaty line.

Given the time and money that they had invested in the teacher training programme, it is perhaps understandable that they should have acquiesced in the propaganda.

Most of them were simply focused on passing the course so that they could enter the teaching profession and establish a career.

But what I always found so appalling was the ease and complacency with which my classmates collaborated with the establishment.

They were willing to overlook the systematic indoctrination, and their complicity caused them no compunction.

They acted without regard for the integrity of our education system, and without regard for the educational opportunities of our young learners.

If these people were really invested in the future of our country, its people and its schools, they should have felt much more inclined to stick their necks out.

When we were invited to respond to an article advocating the compulsory teaching of te reo Maori in an online forum, I was the only respondent to reject the proposal.

During a unit of our course on the Treaty of Waitangi, I posted a link to David Round’s treaty-related essays and encouraged my classmates to examine the other side of the argument.

Not a soul responded to that thread, but one of my classmates later described my action as “extremely stupid.”

Cowardice and passivity of this kind cannot be sufficiently condemned.

It is the complicity of trainee teachers that has perpetuated the problems in our education system – and yet this state of affairs is entirely avoidable.

Student teachers: will you join the resistance?

If trainee teachers put up even the slightest resistance, there is no way that teacher training programmes could continue in their present form.

But year after year, no one speaks out.

Let us not forget that Dante reserved one of the fieriest corners of his inferno for those who, in a time of moral crisis, try to stay neutral.

President John F Kennedy paraphrasing Dante.

 SCHOOL CULTURE AND CLASSROOM LEARNING

 Placements provide trainee teachers with an opportunity to gain practical teaching experience within a variety of host schools.

They also provide illuminating case studies in how the perverse ideas propagated by our teacher training institutes infect school culture and classroom learning.

New Zealand’s cultural indoctrination system
would make a communist dictator proud.

What I observed during my placements were the manifestations of cultural indoctrination, made possible by the acquiescence of school staff and the suspension of their critical faculties.

Treaty principles, it seemed, were not only entrenched in our national curriculum, but also in the minds of our teachers and principals.

Visit almost any school website nowadays and you will find a statement of allegiance to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

If you then click open the school’s ERO report, you are likely to find a recommendation that the school takes steps to raise Maori achievement levels.

From my experience during placements, I noted a general fixation with Maori and treaty issues in professional development programmes.

In the space of two weeks, I attended four professional development seminars, and issues relating to Maori education were covered in each one.

I listened in disbelief to a one-hour presentation on how primitive Maori sacrifice rituals could be incorporated into the study of The Hunger Games in order to better serve Maori learners.

(And this was at a predominantly white school in a predominantly white area of New Zealand.)

Maori learners could read ‘This Horrid Practice’
to see how their precolonial forebears staved off
hunger. But how would that serve them?

The Tataiako Cultural Competencies for Teachers of Maori Learners document was specifically designed for professional development, and there is a constant push to ‘deepen’ teachers’ understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The real tragedy is when treaty principles encroach on classroom learning.

I am young enough to remember being exposed to an inordinate amount of bicultural literature as part of my high school English education.

Nowadays, students do not study Bruce Mason’s The Pohutukawa Tree, but New Zealand’s highest grossing film, Boy.

(This is what it means to ‘cater to Maori needs’ and to ‘include a Maori perspective.’)

Resources that have been developed by the Ministry of Education for teaching the Treaty of Waitangi are widely used in Social Studies classes, propagandizing treaty lies, and brainwashing the younger generation.

I visited one school where male students were forced to participate in an inter-house haka competition.

How is it that in a civilised country where
violence is “not OK”, it is OK to stage contests forcing
boys to rage like savages in the name of “culture”?

At the same school, a ‘He Kakano’ initiative to introduce more Maori iconography around New Zealand schools was greeted with rapturous enthusiasm.

I even heard it rumoured that the NZQA was going to introduce an achievement standard for cooking hangis in Home Economics.

THE MYTH AND THE MYTHMAKERS

There seems to be a general attitude among teachers and principals that uniting students under a common Maori banner has a positive effect on school culture: group identity enforces group belonging, gives weight to a shared vision, and if properly manipulated, promotes social order and cohesion.

Modern history provides ample examples of how those in power have created identity myths to mobilise people in pursuit of their own political ends.

We would do well, therefore, to question the myth that is being foisted on our student population, and to question the motivations of those who have prescribed that myth.

Maori culture, by which our education system now defines itself, is a primitive culture. Primitivism represents an early phase of human development, long before mankind had achieved civilisation.

Primitivism is not preferable to civilisation, and it is folly to pretend otherwise. Civilisation has elevated our minds and refined our nature; primitivism bears the stamp of our lowly origins.

What sort of education system accentuates
the primitive and eliminates the sensitive?

The ‘anarchy of instincts’ made manifest in the haka stands in symbolic relations to the mode of existence from which it sprang. To promote such barbaric practices is to turn the mind away from nobler forms of expression, and to shut out the airs of heaven.

It is anti-intellectual, and it militates against education.

New Zealand’s Samantha Powell representing
our supposedly peace-loving nation at the
Miss Universe pageant in Vietnam in 2008.

Refashioning our schools with Maori iconography to reflect the primitive mind will also have a barbarising effect. As one early European visitor to New Zealand described the Maori aesthetic: “it is all gargoyles and no angels.”

What other nation on Earth
prioritises barbarity over beauty?

The reorientation of our national curriculum towards biculturalism and ‘treaty principles’ reflects a political agenda to enshrine Maori language and culture, and to move New Zealand towards co-governance.

In taking it upon themselves to determine the identity of our nation, the NZ Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education have also been motivated by their own vanity.

They have no business dictating to us what our culture should be, and it is arrogant of them to claim this right.

CULTURALISM AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

Culturalism is defined as the ideology of ethnic politics.

A key feature of the culturalist enterprise is the fetishization of difference, such that ethnic identity assumes almost sacred value.

In a particularly revealing line from our national curriculum, it is argued:

“By understanding and using te reo Maori, New Zealanders become more aware of the role played by the indigenous language and culture in defining and asserting our point of difference in the wider world.”

While it is true that Maori culture sets us apart from the rest of the world, it is worth considering the effects of fetishizing this ‘point of difference.’

By extolling a culture simply in virtue of being different, culturalists encourage pernicious forms of relativism and tribalistic habits of mind.

This is quite evident among prominent Maori leaders such as Margaret Mutu and Annette Sykes. Convinced of their own uniqueness, they divorce themselves from the rest of the human race, and retreat into their own narrow world of Maoridom.

 Annette Sykes and Margaret Mutu.

Regrettably, I observe the same tendency in the younger generation of Maori who have been indoctrinated into thinking that they, too, are different.

We would better serve Maori students if we stressed commonality among races and encouraged an internationalist perspective.

A disturbing feature of culturalism in education is that it breaks down the essential distinction between local knowledge, acquired at home, and disciplinary knowledge, acquired at school.

Disciplinary knowledge is based on objective truth and universal principles. It broadens the mind by taking students beyond themselves and beyond their immediate environment.

The culturalist approach of making ethnicity relevant to classroom learning undermines disciplinary knowledge and cuts students off from the international community.

This is especially true in the exciting new era of online education where the proliferation of MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) and websites like the ‘Khan Academy,’ are democratizing knowledge like never before.

The influence of these resources is set to grow, bringing the best teachers in the world to the widest possible audience, and creating a level playing field for all students.

Online education is reinforcing the primacy of disciplinary knowledge and accelerating a linguistic convergence towards the language of academia, English.

CULTURE: A BETTER ALTERNATIVE

The culturalists are right about one thing: culture really does matter.

But culture (the noble pursuit of truth, wisdom and beauty) should never be confused with culturalism (the reification of ethnicity).

Educators need to learn the difference.

To illustrate this point, we might compare the Renaissance movements in both European and Maori history.

The European Renaissance involved looking outward to acquire new learning; the Maori Renaissance involved looking inward to advance a political cause.

So why is it that our schools teach the latter to the exclusion of the former?

An education system that is committed to culture, as opposed to culturalism, should reflect the humanist ideals of the European Renaissance.

It should pass on “the best that has been said and thought,” and not tailor learning to specific ethnic groups.

Western learning represents a high-water mark in the history of mankind, and this is why it dominates school (and university) curriculums.

In other parts of the world, people have embraced our intellectual traditions, and increasingly, they are beating us at our own game. Like all serious-minded people, they understand that “we see further because we stand on the shoulders of giants.”

One woman who benefited from an education in culture is Dame Kiri Te Kanawa.

She stands as an example to her people (and to the New Zealand education system) of what Maori can achieve if they aspire to excellence on a global stage.

What would she make of Russell Bishop’s ‘Culturally Responsive Pedagogy of Relations’?

And how might her life have unfolded had she been taken aside at school and told that she learnt differently from her non-Maori peers?

The race that counts is the human race.

Dame Kiri Te Kanawa succeeded not because she was treated differently from others but because she was treated the same.

She was also given the best that our culture can offer, and students deserve nothing less.

WHAT THEN MUST WE DO?

As New Zealand’s educational ranking continues to slide in international tables, the National Party rolls out managerial solutions and promises more money for teachers.

No politician has dared to question what is being taught in our classrooms, what is being taught in our teacher training institutes, and what is being prescribed by our national curriculum.

If our education system is to regain its credibility, there must be a return to disciplinary knowledge and an end to culturalist influence.

(If we require a model, the British Secretary of Education, Michael Gove, has executed precisely these moves in the past two years, rewriting both the History and the English high school curriculums.)

‘Treaty principles’ must be removed from our national curriculum and the cultural indoctrination of students and teachers must cease. The ‘cult of biculturalism’ is wasting teachers’ precious time, and it is producing mind rot in the classroom.

If everyone who reads this post sends the link
to every teacher and trainee teacher they know,
the debate will snowball and a hero will emerge.

In this post, I have provided my own personal account of the teacher training that I received.

Every teacher has his/her own story about cultural indoctrination in our schools and teacher training institutes.

I encourage all members of my profession to share their stories of ‘treaty absurdity’ by leaving a comment below.

A lone voice has little force in this context, but if we can catalogue our concerns and describe our experiences, we may create the groundswell of opposition that is so desperately needed.

____________________________________

Now back to me, the blog owner. I thank A Teacher In Exile for sending me his story. I’m proud to post it.

I share his hope that other teachers will now come forward with their own stories. Please urge them to do so.

Tell them that even their anonymous accounts, added together, will apply crucial pressure to the propaganda parrot trainers. With enough pressure to tell the truth, these habitual liars will have no choice but to back down.

So let’s get debate raging in staffrooms up and down the land. Send this to everyone you know in education. Every principal. Every Education Ministry employee. Every teacher

Ask every trainee teacher, ‘Do you have a noble ambition to inspire our children with “the best that has been said and thought”? Or will you be content to be a propaganda parrot for the state?’

In the war of ideas between civilisation and primitivism, there is no more important battleground than the nation’s classrooms.

If you’re a teacher or trainee teacher and really do want to make a difference to New Zealand, then our children and generations yet unborn need you to stand up now.

“A victory for Maori”: judge discharges raging drunken racist boy racer mobster burglar so he can be king

How many crimes can a Maori prince commit before he’s convicted
— or crowned?

A billion dollars in assets, and still no change to the bad stats.

And that’s just in the Tainui royal family, where the ruling class and the underclass appear to be closely related.

This is the story of what happened when the most rebellious member of the rebel court of Ngaruawahia came face to face with perhaps the most weak-kneed judge of the Court of New Zealand.

It concerns the repeated offending of both Prince Korotangi Paki and Judge Philippa Cunningham.

It features the imaginative excuses of King Tuheitia, Tuku Morgan, Annette Sykes and Kim Workman.

And it goes to the heart of the crisis that this site seeks to expose: the relentless glorification in a supposedly civilised country of the primitive over the civilised, not just by those who identify as primitive, but also by those who are supposed to represent the civilised.

THE OFFENCES

The New Zealand Herald reports:

Paki was drinking with three co-accused in Kaiti, Gisborne, on March 18.

The defendants drove to the Top Ten Holiday Park where they stole two $800 surfboards which belonged to Whakatane High School, according to the police summary of facts.

One defendant returned a surf board when stopped by a member of the public. The second surfboard was placed by Paki in a car the group were using.

They then stole $650 of goods from the boot of a vehicle parked in a man’s driveway, and drove metres down the road where they stole another surfboard from a garage.

THE COURT CASE

Consequences?: PC Plod was no match for the PC judge.
(How ironic that Philippa Cunningham’s initials are also PC.)

Here’s a summary of the case with excerpts from stuff:

The defence:

Paki also applied for a discharge without conviction today. [His three accomplices on the burglary and theft charges had been discharged a few days before.]

His lawyer Paul Wicks QC told the court a conviction would impede his ability to accede to the throne. Potential successors had to have an unblemished record because of the custodial responsibilities involved as King.

 The prosecution:

However, police prosecutor Gul Qaisrani argued a discharge without conviction would set a negative precedent, describing Paki’s attitude during the time of the second offences as “reckless”.

“He knew  at the time what would be the consequences and what would be the implications of the conviction. Therefore he should be liable for the punishment,” he said.

The fact Paki had been on bail for the drink driving incident when he carried out the burglary and theft was “an aggravating factor” he said, which separated him from his three co-accused.

The decision:

Judge Philippa Cunningham discharged Paki without conviction on all charges but imposed a special condition that he provide the court evidence he did not have an alcohol problem or if he did, that he had addressed it with counselling.

 THE RAGING EGOTIST

I’ll give you my thoughts on that decision in a moment. (Quite a lot of them, in fact, because I think this is important.)

But first let’s get to know Prince Korotangi Paki — the Prince Harry of Maoridom — second of two sons of King Tuheitia Paki.

Here’s the Tainui Kid in 2012 expounding his leadership philosophy on Facebook after being ejected from his kapa haka team for unprincely behaviour…

The Tainui Kid and his expletive-laden rant.

Don’t worry if you couldn’t quite make out the words — I’ve laid them out below. In modifying them for a family audience, I realised that they would make quite a rhythmical and spirited haka…

Korotangi Paki’s leadership haka. Might there be a connection between certain
customary rituals and elevated levels of Maori youth violence?

Although I’m being satirical here, how can such angry rituals as hakas and powhiris not be fuelling Maori youth violence?

Call me an angry white male, but surely it’s time for Maori to complete the journey from the primitive to the civilised world by saying “It’s not OK” to these relentlessly boorish,  backward expressions of “culture”.

I feel sorry for all the decent, thoroughly modern Maori who just want to live their lives as equal citizens of a country in which they are endlessly patronised by the nation’s leaders, and continually shamed by their own.

Not only must they put up with being “represented” by the violence and foul-mouthed racism of the Harawira family, but now the so-called “royal” family are letting the side down as well.

This is what passes for racial tolerance in the household of the Maori “king”…

THE ABUSIVE RACIST

Anti-Asian racism by resentful Maori is nothing new.
Racist abuse by a member of the royal family is.

And there’s more from prince Korotangi Paki, this time invoking the Nazis and the Mongrel Mob…

THE MOBSTER SALUTE

This Facebook post reveals the young prince is an artist. Good on him for
that. Just a shame that “f ck” and the Mongrel Mob salute “seig (sic) hail (sic)”
seem to be acceptable usage in the Maori variant of the King’s English.

To be fair to the Mongrel Mob, they only misspell “sieg”. The king’s son manages to get “heil” wrong as well. He’s also come up with innovative new variants of both “sieg” and “dog”…

THE ILLITERATE WARRIOR

“Seigg dogg and his bro”: Prince Korotangi Paki reenacting the savagery
of his skull-smashing cannibal warrior ancestor Te Wherowhero .

If only his offending was limited to word crimes. Or even just one or two crimes.

But sadly, the second in line to the Maori throne ticks all the boxes of a typical South Auckland street crim.

No arrests for physical violence so far, it seems. Let’s hope it stays that way after September, when he becomes a father with his pregnant girlfriend.

Judging by his crazed YouTube tirade above, who can be confident?

And remember, that video was made after he’d nearly killed himself and a friend the year before…

THE DUMB RECIDIVIST

The Herald reports that in 2011, a 16 year old Korotangi was up on
boy racer charges after nearly killing himself and his friend in a car crash.
He seems to have been let off that one too.

Disgracefully, it appears the 2013 drink-driving charge is the second driving charge for which the king’s son has gone unpunished.

The media can find no record of Paki even going to court for his near-fatal boy racer crash in 2011. This despite the police having charged him with dangerous driving.

At a court appearance on 5 May 2014 over his burglary and drink-driving charges, his lawyer said that he was “appearing for the first time”.

Why did he not appear in 2011?

THE PREVIOUS LET-OFF?

The Mitsubishi Lancer that Paki wrapped round a Huntly power pole.

Question: What do the young prince’s racist Facebook posts, raging video, and near-fatal car crash have in common?

Answer: they all happened before the four charges (two of burglary, one of theft and one of drunken driving) that Judge Philippa Cunningham let him off recently.

Charges to which he had pleaded guilty.

THE HISTORY OF OFFENDING

To keep track of the prince’s largely unpunished offending:

• 2011 — wrapped a car round a power pole in near-fatal boy racer crash. Charged, then let off by police.*
• 2012 — made a foul-mouthed video rant after being kicked out of a kapa haka contest.
• 2013 — October: caught driving drunk. Let off, apart from 8 month loss of licence.
  2013 — December: posted racist Facebook comment abusing Chinese.
• 2014 — March: while on bail, went on burglary bender, stealing over $2000 worth of surfboards and clothes. Let off.

Roll on 2015. What will he do for an encore?

* At his 5 May 2014 court hearing, Paki’s lawyer said he was appearing for the first time, indicating police must have quietly dropped the dangerous driving charges in 2011.

THE WORST OFFENDER?

Let’s be clear, there are three main offenders in this story:

1. The Maori king’s son – for three times burgling and stealing while on bail for drink-driving at over seven times the legal limit, having previously been charged with boy racing and crashing a car.
2. The judge – who discharged the crooked prince because convictions would have stopped him from becoming king.
3. The king – who through his representative proclaimed Judge Philippa Cunningham’s decision a victory for Maori.

Who’s worst? I don’t know about you, but my order of offensiveness is 3, 2, 1.

In any credible monarchy, the son’s four crimes would rule him out of ever ruling anyone. And yet the King has not ruled him out. The boy’s crimes were no less criminal just because a weak judge dared not offend the sacred race.

Far better, Cunningham no doubt rationalised (in keeping with her PC tradition as a Helen Clark appointee), to offend 95% of the population…

THE ENRAGED PUBLIC

The public judges the judge harshly in stuff’s online poll.

Stuff’s poll was just the latest in a long line of polls about aspects of racial favouritism. The message from New Zealanders is always the same — about 80% opposed…

THE CONSISTENT MESSAGE

Next time someone tries to call you a fringe “redneck”, ask them if they
believe 80% of New Zealanders are rednecks. On the evidence of 12 polls (the
latest today), that’s how many don’t want a bar of racial favouritism.

And yet, despite knowing the way her employers — the people of New Zealand — feel about racial bias, Judge Philippa Cunningham was happy to ignore the 80% and indulge the 20%…

THE CRAVEN JUDGE

Judge Philippa Cunningham has “form” in slapping celebrities
with wet bus tickets. This time the Queen’s law enforcer prefers to
work for the Maori King. 

It’s clear from her comments in the Rotorua Daily Post that Judge Philippa Cunningham is a dangerously craven, politically correct fool of a judge.

‘In sentencing, Judge Cunningham said she was “driven to the conclusion” that Paki would lose out on being a successor if convicted.

“There’s only two sons and in my view it’s important that the king at the appropriate time has the widest possible choice of a successor and it’s important for Mr Paki, as one of those two sons, to have the potential to be a successor in time.”

Why is it important for a street criminal to grow up to be a king? Why is that more important than protecting the public from him?

The editor of the Manawatu Standard, Michael Cummings, got to the nub of the issue:

But the true absurdity in the Paki case lies not in the outcome, but in the logic upon which it was based.

During Paki’s sentencing hearing, Judge Philippa Cunningham asked his lawyer, Paul Wicks, to make inquiries as to the impact a conviction would have on his client’s chances of becoming king.

Wicks investigated, before telling the judge that “any conviction for any criminal offending is considered unacceptable. The chiefs around the country are often heard to say [eligible candidates] must be ‘whiter than the dove’,” Wicks said.

So, the next Maori King can be a confessed burglar, thief and drink driver, as long as the Ministry of Justice’s database doesn’t record him as such.

If Judge Cunningham took a holistic view of the case before her, she would have identified that Paki could never be considered “whiter than a dove” no matter what decision she reached regarding his request to be discharged without conviction.

Well said, Mr Ed.

THE NATIONAL STANDARD

With or without a conviction, the chiefly standard dictates that Paki cannot
be King. So why can he not be convicted?

Everyone in Tainui knows that Korotangi’s got no chance of being king — and no desire to be. In fact, the diabetic King has already chosen K0r0’s older brother as his stand-in:

In 2012 Paki announced that due to ill health he was … deputising his son Whatumoana Te Aa Paki to act in his stead.

Earth to Judge Philippa Cunningham: you are not employed as a succession-planner to the rebel court of Ngaruawahia. You are paid by the Court of New Zealand to treat all of your fellow citizens equally under the law.

THE JUDGE’S ALLEGIANCE:
TO QUEEN, NOT BOGUS KING

Someone please tell Judge Cunningham that she works for
the Queen of New Zealand, not the King of Ngaruawahia.

 Multiple offending and burgling while on bail are evidently no big deal to this serial wet-bus-ticket-wielder:

While his drink driving was moderately serious, she said, the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction were “out of all proportion” to the offence.

Moderately serious? Consequences?

After previously crashing his car into a power pole while speeding (for which he apparently suffered no legal consequences), you’d think there’d be zero tolerance of any more driving offences by Mr Paki.

But no, he was let off again, even though…

Breath testing gave a reading of 761, nearly twice the adult limit and more than five times the limit for someone under 20 at the time.

Er no, actually more than 761 times, since the limit for his age was 0.

However, she said she was concerned that alcohol had been a factor in both incidents, and made the ruling conditional on receiving a report from a medical professional clearing Paki of any alcohol addiction or alcohol abuse issues.

He was also disqualified from holding a drivers licence for eight months.

Well I guess that’s something.

By the way, according to the Herald, the king was in court to support Korotangi. Did his regal presence cause the PC judge to go soft on his son?

THE DOUBLE STANDARD

An apt drink-driving ad spoof that’s doing the rounds.

So the recidivist drunken boy racer will be back hooning around the streets in March — thanks judge.

She ordered a discharge without conviction for the burglary and theft charges, in keeping with Paki’s co-accused.’

Questions:

1. Were Paki’s co-accused let off because they were the prince’s “bros”? Why else would they have been let off charges of stealing over $2000 worth of property?
2. Why did Paki get the same non-punishment as his mates when, unlike them, he committed his crimes while on bail for another crime?

THE ROYAL PRECEDENT

If an English court can fine Princess Anne and behead King Charles I,
why can’t a New Zealand court convict a Maori royal recidivist?

Blogger Alf Grumble points out that there is a real double standard between the way the British courts dealt with an errant Princess Anne (not to mention Charles I, who was beheaded!) and the way the New Zealand court has dealt with the multiple-offending Maori prince.

Even before she discharged the pilfering prince, Cunningham had earned her own special Facebook page “Call for Judge Philippa Cunningham to Resign”.

That was over her discharge and name suppression of a child-abusing comedian because, among other things, “he makes people laugh” and “we all need a good laugh”.

THE JUDGE’S “PRIORS”

A Facebook page demanding the resignation of the serial-offender judge.

She is also the only judge to feature three times on the list of bad judgements on the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s Judge the Judges site…

THE JUDGES’ RECORDS

Judge Philippa Cunningham and her not-so-sensible sentencing
that you definitely can’t trust.

But even Judge Philippa’s offending pales next to that of the Maori king and his representative Tuku “Fancy Pants” Morgan…

THE COURT JESTER

The king’s representative Tuku Morgan. If Paki’s
discharge was a victory, what would a defeat look like?

Morgan’s comments say all that needs to be said about the entitlement ethos of today’s Maori leadership:

Outside court yesterday, the royal family’s representative, Tuku Morgan, said the judge’s decision had been a victory for Maori and recognition of their unique culture.

“[Paki] has the right as one of two sons to be included in the process to inherit or to take the place of his father,” Morgan said.

“The judge has recognised a very important and compelling cultural difference; that he is entwined in a succession process that one day will give rise to a new head of the kingdom, and his opportunity should not be in any way shape or form minimised or compromised.”

Thanks for clearing the heir, Tuku.

So a Maori royal’s “right to be included in the inheritance process” takes precedence over the public’s right to be protected from a right royal ratbag. Welcome to diplomatic immunity, Tainui-style.

To their credit, many Maori are among the 95% of New Zealanders who disagree with the sycophantic judge and the contemptible attitude of the bogus “kingdom”.

 THE COMMENDABLE KAUMATUA

Former Labour MP Dover Samuels accused the judge of suffering from
cultural hypnosis, which reminded me of another of his quotes, above.

One who condemns both the judge’s decision and Tuku Morgan’s response is former Labour MP Dover Samuels :

“I think the judge is absolutely suffering from some sort of cultural hypnosis,” he said.

“I think she’s been persuaded and I think she’s wrong, and to me I don’t think most New Zealander’s would support that.”

Paki should not have hid behind his royalty and taken responsibility for his actions, Samuels said.

“Most New Zealanders would think that this is a young man who has committed an offence and pleaded guilty to it and would have the courage to stand up and say ‘treat me no different to anybody else’,” Samuels said.

“It doesn’t matter what Tuku Morgan thinks.”

A commendable response. Samuels told Tv3:

“We have many of our young people very similar circumstances who have been confined to her majesty’s marae at Ngawha Prison … Judges need to focus on the consistency of their penalties,” he says.

Korotangi Paki should be going to Ngawha, not Ngaruawahia.

It was Samuels who, according to former prime minister Mike Moore, once said about the sycophancy of the likes of Doug Graham and Chris Finlayson, “Put a cloak on a Pakeha and he’ll go weak at the knees”.

And he wasn’t the only high profile Maori leader from the Left to criticise Judge Cunningham:

Labour Party MP Nanaia Mahuta, who is Korotangi Paki’s aunt, said the comments were unacceptable.

They did not send the right signals to young people about what was acceptable in a society such as New Zealand’s, where people were treated fairly, equally and with respect, she said.

Only problem with that, Nanaia, is that some people in New Zealand are treated more fairly and more equally than others.

THE WRONG ROYAL ROLE MODEL

King Tuheitia Paki. The man who thinks he owns your water also thinks
his son saying “Sieg Heil” can be put down to the “ignorance of youth”.
So whose job was it to educate his son?

Most organisations are the lengthened shadow of the man or woman at the top. The same applies to families.

This is how Korotangi Paki’s father the king responded to his son’s foul-mouthed anti-Asian racism and use of the Nazi/Mongrel Mob salute “Sieg Heil”:

In a statement, King Tuheitia said that he apologised unreservedly for any offence the comments had caused and had let his son know of his extreme displeasure.

(Presumably the same displeasure that had no effect when he presumably voiced it in 2011, 2012 and 2013.)

He said he did not condone racism in any shape or form, and that the ill-advised use of a gang slogan could be put down to the “ignorance of youth”.

Too true. But why is his son so ignorant?

Surely it’s the duty of a Maori monarch to impress upon his offspring the depravity of the gang culture that destroys the lives of so many of his people.

The king’s failure to do so is more high-profile evidence that poor parenting, not colonisation, is the chief cause of intergenerational Maori underperformance.

Tainui’s billion dollar asset milestone suggests it’s not a money problem, but a moral problem.

THE PREDICTABLE APOLOGISTS

Annette: If marae justice is so great, why does he keep offending?

Sadly and predictably, my Native Affairs debating opponent Annette Sykes is denying the undeniable:

“The Maori King’s son wasn’t given preferential treatment when he was discharged without a conviction on charges of burglary, theft and drink driving,” says Mana Party member and lawyer Annette Sykes.

Korotangi Paki, 19, had previously pleaded guilty to all the charges related to two separate incidents from March this year and October 2013.

His friends Te Ahorangi Totorewa, 20, Hamuera Wipoha Pugh, 19, and Raa Ngaru Smith, 18 were all discharged without conviction in Gisborne District Court on Monday over the March burglary and theft incident.

Yesterday in the Auckland District Court, Judge Philippa Cunningham discharged Paki without conviction.

Ms Sykes told Newstalk ZB this morning that was appropriate.

“The principle of equal treatment needed to be taken in to account,” she said.

“Remember [the co-offenders] were dealt with first and they got a very similar outcome. It would be wrong for three men to [be discharged without conviction] and a young man to be ostracised just because he is the King’s son.”

But hang on, Annette. You’re conveniently ignoring the distinct possibility that Paki’s three accomplices were let off precisely because they were mates of the king’s son. Why else would a gang of thieves be treated so leniently?

And more to the point, you’re also well aware that Paki’s offending was much worse than his mates’.

Judge Philippa made it clear to Paki’s lawyer that she viewed his drink-driving charge as more serious than the burglary and theft charges.

And he’d been not only caught drink-driving, but was on bail for it when he nicked the surfboards and clothes.

And they hadn’t, and weren’t.

Two reasons why he should have been dealt with differently. How many more offences should the king’s son have to commit before he receives more punishment?

Ms Sykes said Paki hadn’t been let off the charge within Tainui.

“Korotangi has really had marae justice served up to him.”

Yeah right. And what does “marae justice” mean? Surely not family violence?

One of the King’s spokesmen, Rahui Papa confirmed to the Herald that Korotangi was driving the vehicle … “When I see him, he’s going to get a big clip on his ears.”

Like spokesman, like son. Everyone in His Majesty’s court seems to be competing to be the biggest embarrassment.

As for Korotangi, how genuinely sorry is this young hoon likely to be after years of getting away with bad behaviour?

And if he is, why doesn’t he say so?

Considering he comes from a rebel tribe that breached the Treaty and illegally took up arms against the Crown in the 1860s, excuse me if I doubt Tuku Morgan’s assurance — let alone Paki’s lawyer’s — that he is “genuinely remorseful”.

More than likely they’ll all just be having another laugh at the expense of the dumb Pakeha.

THE CROCODILE TEARS

Tuku says Paki is sorry. For his crimes — or for getting caught?

All we know is that real justice has not been served, and whatever marae justice the boy has received so far hasn’t deterred him from offending (or being offensive) time and time again.

Another predictable apologist is the Maori criminal’s friend, Kim Workman of Rethinking Crime and Punishment.

THE MINIMISERS

Rethinking Crime and Punishment: essentially a movement
dedicated to making excuses for, and going soft on, Maori criminals.

Rethinking Crime and Punishment is essentially a movement dedicated to making excuses for, and going soft on, Maori criminals. Its senior advisor is none other than the former chief judge of the Waitangi Tribunal, Sir Eddie Durie.

Kim Workman’s own blog is called Smart on Crime. Now that’s a name that’s crying out for a bit of editing…

THE SOFT OPTIONS

Let shame be your punishment, says Kim Workman.
Let prison, say I.

Workman believes that all the king’s son needs is a good public shaming, and that having received that, he has now been punished enough.

Few outside the “royal” court seem to agree. I certainly don’t. I think he needs some time out in a room with barred windows .

Elsewhere on his blog, Workman goes to some lengths to portray Korotangi Paki as regal, and to minimise his offending. In the captioned image below, he refers to Korotangi, but shows instead his dignified-looking ancestor, King Tawhiao.

He implies Paki is a first-time offender when he is not. And he describes his offending as “fairly low-level”.

In describing Paki, he uses the offender-friendly word “troubled” rather than the victim-friendly “trouble“.

This is King Tawhiao, not Prince Korotangi. Paki is “trouble”, not
“troubled”. And far from being “not a typical first-time offender,”
he’s not a first-time offender at all. (So why, you may ask, is he still
waiting for his first conviction?)

Tawhiao, by the way, would actually have approved of Korotangi Paki’s illiteracy:

He preached that Kingites should keep separate from Pakeha. He was strongly against Maori children going to school to get an education.

As a result when the railway went through Kingite territory Kingites were only able to get unskilled jobs such as bush clearing.

This strong anti education stance started a Kingite tradition that led to increasing isolation and lower standard of living than Maori experienced elsewhere in New Zealand.

It was not until after the turn of the century that Kingites were finally persuaded to abandon their hatred of formal education in schools.

If you want to understand where Korotangi Paki is coming from, it’s from a tribe and a King who were passionate about ignorance. Hopefully they’ve learnt a bit since those days, though many problems clearly remain.

Kim Workman’s blog  reveals the alarming statistic that…

for Māori males born in 1975 [the year of the Treaty of Waitangi Act – JA], it is estimated that 22 percent had a Corrections managed sentence before their 20th birthday, and 44 percent had a Corrections managed sentence by the age of 35.  

So despite 39 years of indulging Griever Maori’s every whim, just over one in five Maori males born at the dawn of the Treaty grievance industry had been a guest of Her Majesty’s prison service by around the time of the Tainui settlement.

And a decade and a half later, after many more settlements and the creation of a $40 billion Maori economy, the percentage of those 1975 babies who had done time was almost one in two.

THE BAD STATS CONTINUE

Billions in Treaty settlements making no difference: of Maori males born
the year the Waitangi Tribunal was founded (1975), 20% had a Corrections-
managed sentence before they were 20 (1995), and 44% by 35 (2010).

Kim Workman, in case you’re wondering about his motivation, is part-Maori.

As, much to his apparent consternation, are 53% of our prisoners…

THE OVER-REPRESENTATION

The differential treatment of Maori within the judicial system. 

Just one more revelation from Workman’s blog before finishing up on the subject of the Maori king’s son.

Presumably the purpose of the above graph is to bemoan the unfairness of more Maori being locked up than fined. No doubt the Rethinking Crime and Punishment people regard this as evidence of racism on the part of the authorities.

But of course, there’s another possibility: that Maori commit most of the serious crimes, and not so many of the non-serious ones.

 THE FORGOTTEN VICTIM

More dishonesty from the boy who could be king.

Paki’s supposedly sincere remorse did not extend to him offering a sincere apology — or in fact any apology at all — to the manager of the Gisborne holiday park from which he had stolen the surfboards.

His claim to have apologised was evidently a right royal lie.

One of the victims of the crime spree, Matt Moore, manager of the Waikanae Beach Top 10 Holiday Park, said it didn’t seem the young men were held to account.

“I think everyone should be held to the same standards. I was a bit surprised [with the judge’s decision].

“They talked about having contacted everyone and apologised, but they didn’t contact me. It was negative publicity for my business and I never heard from them.”

BURGLAR OR LYIN’?

Another spoof doing the rounds.

And yet despite this failure at the first hurdle of the restorative process, Judge Philippa Cunningham…

…praised the work Paki and his friends had undertaken in terms of restorative justice and community work, as well as an on-going mentoring programme.

I rest my case.

The excesses of the son of the Maori king, coupled with those of the Harawira family, are evidence that in radical Maoridom, the underclass extends into the highest echelons of the ruling class.

Until some brave civilised Maori speaks out and turns his or her people against the glorification of primitivism and the anti-social behaviour embodied in the haka and the powhiri, the culture of violence and dishonesty will not change.

Until that person emerges, the least the rest of us can do is refuse to condone it.

The last thing we should do is indulge it.

 

 

Martin Doutre’s BSA complaint against Maori TV

 Native Affairs reporter Iulia Leilua ‘framing’ Martin Doutré beside
the standing stone on Mt Albert on the morning of the autumn equinox.

Along with Mike Butler and a teacher who prefers to remain anonymous, Martin Doutré has also lodged a formal BSA complaint against Maori TV for their cynically-titled Native Affairs hatchet jobs “Tall Tales” and “What Lies Beneath”.

As expected, the channel is struggling to put together a credible response. Both Mike and the teacher have had letters from Maori TV extending their 20-working-days deadline by a further 20 working days.

(Yes, they are legally entitled to do this. And yes, it would also have been nice if they’d apologised for the delay. But apologies, it seems, are the sole prerogative of the Pakeha.)

Below is Martin’s complaint. I’ve added photos and captions.

___________________________

Date: June 6^th 2014

To: Paora Maxwell
Chief Executive
Maori TV
P.O. Box 113-017
Newmarket
Auckland 1149

Attn. Vienna.Richards@maoritelevision.com

From: Martin Doutré
[address]
[phone number]
[email address]

Re:       Broadcasting Standards Authority complaint about What lies beneath (screened on consecutive weeks).

Dear Sir or Madam,

On Tuesday, 4^th of February 2014 I was invited to participate in a Native Affairs, Maori Television programme and to express my views on the following main topics raised by Iulia Leilua (convenor):

Martin Doutré

• Why he thinks Allan Titford is innocent

• Why he believes Te Roroa’s claim on his land was fraudulent

• How the Maori stories of Patupaiarehe and Turehu prove that Maori weren’t the first settlers of NZ

• An explanation of one of the ancient observatory sites he’s studied (Stockade Hill??)

• Why he continues his work despite heavy criticism from NZ’s leading academics

• If he’s right, what this means in terms of Maoridom’s place in NZ

• Also what it’d mean for the Treaty settlement process

• What impact Martin Doutré’s theories would have on Maori treaty claims if they were widely accepted

• Why it’s important for Maori and wider NZ to be aware of Martin’s research.

Despite my misgivings that the true intention of Native Affairs was to do a hatchet job on my work and integrity, but after receiving assurances from Iulia Leilui of fair and balanced reporting, I decided to give Maori Television the benefit of the doubt and participate.

In accordance with Iulia’s specific requests, I planned out an itinerary of archaeological sites that we would visit on the 21^st of March, 2014 (the Autumn equinox), where I could demonstrate accurate equinoctial fixes on the rising and setting sun, as determined from ancient solar observatories constructed by a pre-Maori people.

Martin Doutré on Mt Albert with one of many standing stone observatories
placed on the hills around Auckland by pre-Maori people. From this spot, twice
a year only, the  ancients could observe the sun rising in line with the trench they
had cut in Mt Wellington (behind) — their spring/autumn equinox marker.

To further aid Iulia in accurately reporting my views and evidence, I presented the itinerary to her in book form, complete with historical quotes related to the Patu-paiarehe people, as well as explanations and photos of archaeological sites to be visited.

The tour extended throughout an entire day, commencing before sunrise and finishing after sunset.

In the course of that long day, spanning about 14 hours of interim filming and interviews, I was agreeable to answer any and all questions that Iulia wished to ask.

I also participated at my own expense, providing all materials and gasoline for the extended tour to archaeological sites, scattered around the Auckland isthmus, at no cost whatsoever to Maori Television.

A lone piper on the Stockade Hill observatory as the sun sets in a trench
cut on Mt Wellington as an equinoctial marker. On the day we went out with
Maori TV, cloud prevented a clean shot, but the reporter had seen this photo.

Native Affairs/Maori Television later chose to misrepresent my integrity as a person, my research and views, in a clear breach of Standards 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Broadcasting Act, 1989.

Standard 4 states:

“When discussing controversial issues of public importance in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.”

Far from airing my views in a balanced and fair manner, as promised, Native Affairs/Maori Television cherry-picked only a very selective and short segment of footage from the comprehensive interviews I provided, sufficient to show what the enemy looked like and little else.

In my stead, they substituted in lengthy diatribes from a sizable group of known adversaries, hostile to my archaeological work or documented research about the Treaty of Waitangi.

Paul Moon, and later both Scott Hamilton and Ranginui Walker, have not, to my knowledge, ever visited the archaeological sites that I demonstrated to the Native Affairs/Maori Television crew, nor do they have any known expertise related to the cultural symbolism, pictograms or known forensic attributes associated with obelisks of those sites.

The sole participation of these professional naysayers centred on unfairly debunking, without any substantiating evidence whatsoever from their quarter, my tangible, observable, scientific evidence of archaeological and historical anomalies, which were certainly worthy of serious consideration in the public arena.

These adversarial commentators instead engaged in ad hominem attacks against me personally, in lieu of any counter-evidence, inferring that I was, in fact, harbouring a hidden political agenda, hostile to Maori interests.

Their clear intention in pushing this conspiracy theory was to incite suspicion, distrust, racial hatred and derision towards me personally, thereby distracting attention away from the inconvenient scientific issues that I raised.

Far from the public having any opportunity to view my archaeological evidence and have its merits debated scientifically in an open forum, it was deliberately withheld and not shown.

In the itinerary booklet I provided for Iulia, I included many direct quotes from Maori oral traditions related to the “uru-kehu – kiri-puwhero” pre-Maori people.

These quotes have come from the learned elders of yesteryear themselves, and are copiously interspersed throughout our old history books, Native Land Court Minute Books, etc.

The many hundreds of references that issued forth from Maori oral tradition sources existed before I was born and constituted historical information available to generations of New Zealanders since the dawn of the colonial era.

Despite this, the Native Affairs programme deliberately represented this pre-Maori inhabitants’ concept as something I had conjured up out of my own imagination, as if it was some form of new, heretofore unheard of, revisionist history.

Maori activist Justin Taua went so far as to call me and others being unfairly maligned and misrepresented on the Native Affairs programme “revisionists”.

This was further substantiated by Paul Moon, who, amongst other things said, “There’s a risk of some of these strange ideas almost becoming mainstream.”

My question to each of them would be:

Why are you calling me a “revisionist” when I still believe the history I was taught as a child from our history books, or the information I gleaned directly from learned Maori elders themselves in my adolescence or latter years?

I have never changed my historical views, whereas Paul Moon and Justin Taua are, by their own words, now in denial about this aspect of our long-term, well-recorded history.

I would ask them to please explain the meaning of a couple of sample quotes, out of the hundreds I could provide from our history books.

From Tuwharetoa by Rev. John Grace, chapter 7, page 115:

“Generally speaking, Ngati Hotu were of medium height and of light colouring. In the majority of cases they had reddish hair. They were referred to as urukehu.

It is said that during the early stages of their occupation of Taupo they did not practice tattooing as later generations did, and were spoken of as te whanau a rangi (the children of heaven) because of their fair skin.

There were two distinct types. One had a kiri wherowhero or reddish skin, a round face, small eyes and thick protruding eyebrows. The other was fair-skinned, much smaller in stature, with larger and very handsome features.

The latter were the true urukehu and te whanau a rangi. In some cases not only did they have reddish hair, but also light coloured eyes.”

Hone Grace had a European father and Maori (Tuwharetoa) mother.

From The Maori Race, by Edward Tregear, pp. 562-563:

“The Maoris used to pay great respect to the bones of their dead, yet here and there may be found among sandhills, etc., human remains uncovered by the wind, and of these no tradition remains, as there would certainly be if the relics were those of ancestors.

The natives say, “These are the bones of strangers.” So also mortuary-caves are found concerning the contents of which the Maoris make the same remark, and regard them with indifference.”

Neither Paul Moon, Justin Taua or Scott Hamilton are in the least qualified to comment about my well-researched views or the tangible archaeological evidence I provided to Native Affairs/Maori Television.

By their own dismissive commentary, they are obviously ignorant concerning the oral traditions related to the Patu-paiarehe, Turehu, Pakepakeha, Ngati Hotu, Ngati Hinewai, Ngati Kura, Ngati Korakorako, Waitaha, Moriori, etc., etc., (and myriad of other named, pre-Maori groups) spoken about, seemingly, by every iwi in New Zealand.

Even Iulia Leilua, who claims Tuwharetoa lineage, appears to be ignorant or in denial of this dynamic history, as recounted by her own iwi, even though she has had direct contact with Monica Matamua who has testified to being, with evidence, of pre-Maori lineage.

If Paul Moon, Scott Hamilton, Justin Taua, Iulia Leilua or others wish to diminish the mana of the learned elders of past generations and call them liars (or worse), then they’re free to do so.

However, I would surmise that the wharewaananga-trained tohunga of past ages would consider ignorant, modern day, empty-vessel, pontificating pretenders, who knew nothing of these histories, simply as pokokohua and of no worth whatsoever, except as food.

I choose to believe the words of the learned elders of yesteryear over those of grievance-industry-aligned revisionist historians such as Paul Moon or radical Trotskyites like Scott Hamilton, etc., pushing their own political agendas.

Scraping the bottom of the barrel: Maori TV’s expert witness, Trotskyite
blogger Scott Hamilton, whose idea of civilised discourse once included
posting a photo of your host captioned “Lizard man John Ansell”.

The Native Affairs/Maori Television presentation grouped me into a batch-lot of people who were referred to as “anti-Treaty and anti-Maori”.

They wrote:

“In part one of this special report, former Northland farmer Allan Titford was portrayed in the media as a man under siege. 

His supporters included people who were anti-Treaty and anti-Māori, many of whom continue to use their money, time and political connections to push their agendas.”

This accusation was reaffirmed by Mihingarangi Forbes in her introductory comments, as well as by Paul Moon, who categorised the grouped batch of individuals under attack from Maori Television as being part of a “subversive organisation” with “another agenda”.

Moon claimed that this so-called “subversive organisation”, of which I was inferred to be a part, “wanted to deny anything to do with the treaty”,etc.

This accusation is in direct breach of Standard 5 of the Broadcasting Act, 1989, which states:

“Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming:

• is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and/or

• does not mislead.”

In several interviews with Iulia Leilua, whether on the phone prior to the formal on-site interviews or during moments of casual conversation, I emphasised that I am very pro-Treaty.

I also stated that one would be hard-pressed to find three people in New Zealand who are more pro-Treaty or supportive of Te Tiriti o Waitangi than Ross Baker, Allan Titford or me.

I went to particular effort to clarify my position, as well as that of the other named individuals, but, from the very first mention on her programme of me and my work Iulia Leilua sought to misrepresent my clearly stated views.

Here are some of the dirty tricks employed in Maori Television’s attempts at character assassination:

• A sparse clip of me at an archaeological site was shown, where I had mentioned (sound-bite not broadcast) to Iulia that the intricate incising, carved bullaun bowls and chevrons in bas and raised relief on particular obelisks had been excavated from under volcanic ash from the 186 AD explosion of Taupo. The forensic evidence thus proved that these human-made features, laboriously carved into stone, predated Maori by over 1000 years.
• Rather than show the site’s component features and broadcast my explanation, Iulia immediately cut to an old archival clip of me at a Treaty-2-U protest exhibit at Rotorua in 2006 and simply stated that I:

“…dispute Maori tangata whenua status. He’s taken this message on a nationwide road show with the One New Zealand Foundation which also defends Allan Titford’s innocence.”

This is a total distortion of facts and was designed to mislead.

I wrote a comprehensive, fully documented book on the subject matter of the Treaty of Waitangi in 2005, which Iulia purports to have read, and my 2006-2007 tour around New Zealand on the heels of the Treaty-2-U propaganda road-show was to protest against the historical lies being told by The Treaty of Waitangi Information Unit.

Our small protest group provided documented proof that Treaty-2-U was totally misrepresenting the true intent, purpose and meaning of the treaty in their indoctrination of forcibly bused-in, captive-audience, schoolchildren.

My participation had nothing whatsoever to do with “Maori tangata whenua status” and was solely focused on treaty text accuracy and interpretation.

See: http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/Treaty2UPart1.htm

Iulia in her commentary states:

“They also promote an alternative version of the Treaty called the Littlewood Treaty discovered in Pukekohe in 1989. It’s been used to dispute Maori land rights and the treaty signed in 1840.”

This again is a total distortion of the facts I relayed to Iulia, and runs counter to what I clearly stated in my 2005 book about the Treaty.

None of us have ever claimed that the Littlewood document is a “treaty” or “alternative version of the treaty”.

On the contrary, we have always emphasised that it is merely the final English draft from which Te Tiriti o Waitangi (in the Maori language) was translated.

The term “Littlewood Treaty” was probably first coined in 1992 by Claudia Orange and known by that title within a close-knit academic circle.

We have merely raised a very legitimate and scholarly argument that no mainstream historian has been able to counter with documented proof.

Even Paul Moon, who is outwardly antagonistic and scathing towards those of us showing evidence the Littlewood document is the final English draft (handwritten by Busby), can’t come up with anything to counter its authenticity.

On the contrary, he’s on public record as saying the following:

• “I agree that the Littlewood document is dated 4 February 1840, and that there was almost certainly no subsequent drafting of the Treaty’s English text’ (From Dr Paul Moon’s 30/8/04 letter to treaty researcher Ross Baker, and posted onto the ONZF website.)

• “On 30th March, US Commodore Charles Wilkes, Antarctic explorer, arrived in the Vincennes to join his other ships Porpoise and Flying Fish. Damaged after their bruising exploration of the icy land, they reprovisioned and repaired their ships till late April. As he left Clendon gave him a further despatch containing a hand-written copy of the Treaty in English copied from Busby’s copy of the final draft. It is believed that Clendon then retained Busby’s copy of the Treaty” (The Treaty and Its Times, by Paul Moon and Peter Biggs, ch. 9, p. 213).

In your role as an ever-on-call expert witness about almost everything and everyone, please explain Paul!

As Paul Moon must know, for the Littlewood document to qualify as the final English draft and mother document to Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the English draft, known by our Treaty historians to have gone missing in about February 1840), it must comply to the following forensic criteria:

• It had to be on paper that preceded the signing of the treaty in 1840 and that paper had to be identifiable as stock in use at the Bay of Islands in February 1840. If the paper was from an orphan stock, then that would cast doubt upon the authenticity of the document.

Clendon’s W. Tucker 1833 watermarked stock fulfils this requirement.

• The paper had to have a pedigree traceable back to one of the founding fathers who drafted the treaty and, ultimately to Busby and Hobson.

The Littlewood document’s pedigree is impeccable and fully traceable to Clendon, Busby and Hobson himself.

• The author of the hand-written text had to be James Busby, British Resident.

That attribute of the Littlewood document is also beyond dispute.

• It had to bear the date, the 4th of February 1840, as that’s the day the final English draft was written.

It is clearly signed off, 4th Feb 1840.

Despite our exhaustive efforts to be very clear on our position, grievance-industry historians like Paul Moon continuously try to detour public thinking away from the true status of the document with such well-worn, red-herring banalities as:

“It can’t be a treaty ’cause it’s not signed.”

Well, of course it’s not signed, Paul – it’s only a draft!

Now Iulia is resorting to the same dirty tricks in deliberately misreporting and misrepresenting what I have expended great effort to explain clearly to her.

She has video footage of me explaining that there “is only one treaty and it’s in the Maori language”.

She also has video footage of me corroborating that statement with a historical quote from Lieutenant-Governor William Hobson, where he said the following about the Maori language document signed at Waitangi on the 6^th of February 1840:

“The treaty, which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi, on the 6^th February, 1840, by 52 chiefs, 26 of whom were of the Confederation, 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 the original document.”

(Letter to Major Bunbury, The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick, p. 162.)

I expressed to Iulia my view that there is no English Treaty, only the final English draft from which Te Tiriti o Waitangi was translated. It has no status as a treaty and neither does anything else in English.

I stated that the lost, final English draft was definitely found again in Pukekohe in 1989 and in my book, which Iulia had in her possession, I mention three other exemplars of the final English draft wording that have languished in overseas archives since February-April 1840 (four in total known to exist in early 1840).

Iulia knows full-well that our only gripe stems from the utter reinvention of the Treaty’s meaning since 1975, after a very defective ENGLISH text was introduced to sit alongside Te Tiriti o Waitangi and be co-equal to it.

The terrible text chosen was one of James Stuart Freeman’s seven variable Formal Royal Style English versions, which were all based upon early rough draft notes and not the final English draft.

Because of the vast differences in wording between that English version and Te Tiriti o Waitangi in Maori, after 1975 the treaty meaning got deliberately reinterpreted (reinvented) until it bore no resemblance whatsoever to what was so clearly stated in either Te Tiriti or the final English draft.

Iulia has video footage of me describing Te Tiriti as a very welcome, benign “gift” from the chiefs in 1840, so, in reference to my clearly stated position and my clear evidence to the contrary, why did Native Affairs/Maori TV mischievously represent me as “anti-Treaty”?

This constitutes a very deliberate slur against my well-described and publicised views and shows that Native Affairs/Maori TV are utterly incapable of accurate investigative reporting.

The Littlewood document subject matter was very worthy of comprehensive discussion in the public arena.

Despite my giving Maori TV an entire day of time and answering any question they wished to pose, the on-archaeological-sites environment in which I conducted the interviews was, obviously, not to their liking.

They obviously wanted me in their sterile studio, being yelled down by ranting adversaries, where I could not display, first-hand, my archaeological evidence.

Even though I had already answered all their questions on camera, Mihingarangi Forbes announced to her viewing audience that I had refused to appear.

Why did I need to appear twice when they had not yet used the lengthy interviews from my first appearance?

It is my firm belief that Native Affairs are deliberately engaging in ad hominem attacks and smear-campaigns in order push their brand of self-serving propaganda.

They wish to promote only that which is beneficial to their own political agenda and have no genuine interest whatsoever towards anything considered counter-productive to their prescribed goals.

Moreover, Annette Sykes displayed an utter lack of knowledge, or worse, related to the origin and significance of the “Littlewood document”.

However, she can correct her misconceptions by studying the entire paper trail and pedigree of the document at: http://www.celticnz.org/TreatyBook/Precis.htm

Dirty tricks employed by Native Affairs further include:

GUILT BY ASSOCIATION

Although political scientist and historian Kerry Bolton, has not, to my certain knowledge, been in any way associated with the marital dispute involving Allan Titford, every effort was made to link him into a confederation with those supporting a retrial for Titford.

No such confederation exists and we pursue totally separate lines of research. His books and scholarly treatises on Marxism or other historical issues are much respected and published in academic journals around the world.

Although Ngati-Hotu kuia Monica Matamua has a dynamic story to tell about her links back to Patu-paiarehe ancestors, supported by DNA evidence and whakapapa, her claim was deliberately rendered suspect by a deceptive ruse of linking her to such dastardly fellows as Martin Doutré, Mykeljon Winckel of Elocal magazine and Kerry Bolton.

This was a treacherous, red-herring tactic employed to discredit a very dignified kuia, whose family has fought for generations to have their unique lineage and tribe recognised.

Her evidence is stand-alone and does not depend upon what Martin Doutré or anyone else “thinks”.

From my perspective, I feel that Iulia Leilua played both ends against the middle in order to get Monica Matamua to participate on the Native Affairs/Maori TV programme.

Iulia emailed me on 14/2/14 and stated:

“Kia ora Martin, just wondering if you could help me organise an interview with Monica Mataamua about her DNA testing?”

I gave Iulia the contact details that I had and, much later, after the terrible programme aired, Monica wrote the following:

“I have gone over and over Iulia’s native affairs program on the internet and the more I studied it the more crooked it got.

I must say she hounded me for months as I am wary of why people want to see me. 

I only agreed after Marty [Martin Doutré] said he had done an extensive  documentary for them so when she did turn up I thought it would be a special edition on N Hotu.

Instead she used my story, cut and spliced it to fit into her dirty scheme of hatred, prejudice and racism. Had nothing to do with the truth’”. etc. 

Monica Matamua was seemingly lured into participation largely on a pretext proffered by Iulia that I would provide visual evidence of Patu-paiarehe structures.

Monica correctly saw that a very dynamic documentary was possible, which could be composed of visual evidence of ancient astronomical and surveying structures, coupled with oral history testimony, DNA evidence and whakapapa.

Such a documentary would, undoubtedly, go a long way towards opening up a floodgate of testimony from the old learned elders, whose knowledge has been muted and supressed for many years now.

Huge new insights into our long-term history would, most certainly, result.

However, such a positive outcome obviously ran counter to the political agenda of Native Affairs.

Monica was simply used in a fashion that would diminish and trivialise her claim to pre-Maori heritage and even make a mockery of it by associating any such claim with discredited nutters and antagonists like Martin Doutré, or a gaggle of other fringe-dwellers stigmatised by the Native Affairs inquisitors.

So, it seems that tribalism, with its tradition of conquerors holding all the mana and the vanquished having none, won the day in the eyes of the unsuspecting viewing public.

The outcome was that Iulia’s Tuwharetoa tribe got to marginalise, hold at bay, and silence Monica’s Ngati Hotu tribal claim yet again by use of red-herring distractions and editing strategies.

Native Affairs are in breach of standards 4, 5 & 6 in relation to their disrespectful treatment of kuia Monica Matamua.

LOGICAL FALLACIES

They have deliberately tried to mislead their audience and unfairly instil doubt about Monica’s assertion by using a logical fallacy along the lines of:

• Monica Matamua believes she is of Patu-paiarehe lineage.
• Martin Doutré believes Monica is of Patu-paiarehe lineage, but is a disreputable fellow who tells lies.
• Monica Matamua is, therefore, not of Patu-paiarehe lineage.

This perverted form of logic, geared to unfairly manipulate the thinking of the viewers who fund Native Affairs/Maori TV from the public purse, was also used discredit the many years of documented, historical research undertaken by Allan and Susan Titford, Ross Baker and others into the Te Roroa land claim.

With regards to Titford, one of the several logical fallacies employed by Native Affairs to discredit his documented research was along the lines of:

• Te Roroa claim a right to own part or all of Allan Titford’s farm at Maunganui Bluff and seek historical redress.
• Allan Titford is a disreputable fellow who burnt down his own farmhouse.
• Te Roroa’s historical claim is therefore correct, their redress is justified and Titford’s documented research is wrong.

Several other usages of the same kind of logical fallacy could be cited in the very obvious smear campaign mounted by Native Affairs against Allan Titford and his supporters.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ALLAN TITFORD

With regards to Maori TVs accusation that “Allan Titford burnt down his own house”, I witnessed John Ansell handing Iulia Leilua two affidavits that testified to the fact that Graham Neville Cochrane, Susan Titford’s father, had committed the arson and had made a death-bed confession of having done so.

One of these affidavits had been sworn before the Police Declarations Officer and the other before a Notary Public.

John Ansell had chosen Maori TV as the media outlet for a public launch of this very special information and we have video footage of Iulia both receiving the affidavits and having their significance explained to her by Ansell.

Despite this, Maori TV’s later assault on Allan Titford relied heavily on the false premise that he was the arsonist.

The core issue or foundation upon which their case against Titford was built was how he was guilty of this nefarious act, but how he’d deceptively blamed Te Roroa for it.

Moreover, Ranginui Walker showed himself to be deliberately obtuse and uninformed regarding the final payout to Allan Titford.

With minimal research, Walker would have ascertained that Titford received a very paltry sum when he was forced, under duress and threats, to forfeit his 1746 acre farm.

Gramsci’s foot soldier: Ranginui Walker, Lebanese Maori sovereigntist and
acolyte of Italian communist Anton Gramsci, who predicted in the 1920s that
“socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture — by infiltration of the
schools, universities, churches and the media”. (Ditto Treatifarianism.)

Walker’s facts and figures smacked of pure propaganda and he came across as a hateful racist who holds “pakeha” in utter contempt.

It’s of significance also that, whereas so-called “pakeha” can be demonised or ridiculed with impunity, under the protocols of Native Affairs tribalism individuals like Alex Nathan of Te Roroa are portrayed in more saintly fashion, beyond reproach or criticism.

In the interests of what Iulia Leilua describes as “balance”, perhaps Native Affairs could do an exposé on Nathan’s stewardship over the Te Roroa rank and file funds and efforts to recover the missing millions of dollars that disappeared during Alex Nathan’s watch as chairman.

SUMMARY

Native Affairs/Maori TV have shown themselves to have a solitary allegiance to Maori grievance-industry agendas, to the exclusion of all else.

Their condescension, unashamed manipulation and insult-to-the-intelligence of their viewing audience, in only telling the viewer what they need to know, is despicable and falls far short of ethical responsibility.

There is no provision of fair, unbiased and balanced reporting, where the viewers are empowered to consider all of the facts for themselves and come to an informed, coherent conclusion of their own volition and free will.

Maori TV, within the confines of “What Lies Beneath” (all segments) coerced its audience into accepting points of view acceptable to Native Affairs.

Other points of view were not presented with sufficient clarity that one could draw any conclusions about their merit.

All in all, Native Affairs led viewers by the nose to a singular, premeditated conclusion, by providing no valid alternative avenues for consideration, after having done a hatchet job on anyone harbouring a contrary point of view, or proffering significant counter-information.

CONCLUSION

Native Affairs/Maori TV is a blatantly racist, political organ in support of Maori supremacy and the grievance industry.

It offers nothing of educational value that would be of interest to the majority of New Zealanders and, as a special interest group’s propaganda outlet, should not be funded by the taxpayer.

Martin Doutré

How to complain to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – Mike Butler

I love it when Maori TV tries to ambush me and present me as a racist for demanding racial equality.

Each time they do this, we get a little more evidence that helps to convince honest, fair-minded Maori that their ignorant, one-eyed cousins are giving them a bad name.

Most helpfully, the radicals’ rants don’t just unsettle some of their own supporters and enrage all of ours. They also appal and convert lots of mild-mannered neutrals.

My live debate with Annette Sykes and the heckling partisan so-called ‘moderator’ Mihingarangi Forbes has opened a new front for us: a flurry of complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

One of these I’ll be posting shortly, a complaint about last Monday’s Native Affairs from a teacher.

But here now is a complaint about the previous week’s Native Affairs, from former newspaper sub-editor and author of the new book Tribes–Treaty–Money–Power, Mike Butler.

Mike is also preparing a complaint about last week’s show, but first things first.

It would be most helpful, dear readers, if you would each consider lodging your own complaint about each of the last two programmes.

Bureaucrats respond to numbers, and this state-funded racist channel needs to get the message that there is a difference between criticism and racism, and that they can’t get away with unfairly smearing people like Allan Titford, Martin Doutre and me.

Tying them up replying to numerous complaints, and having to provide redress for their bias, should help them in their quest to understand the meaning of balance. 🙂

_________________

Native Affairs BSA complaint

 

Date: May 26, 2014
To: Paora Maxwell,
Chief Executive,
Maori TV
PO Box 113-017
Newmarket
Auckland 1149

Attn Vienna.Richards@maoritelevision.com

From:   Mike Butler,
[address]
[phone number]
[email address]

 

Re:       Broadcasting Standards Authority complaint about What lies beneath

The Native Affairs item titled What lies beneath that aired on Monday, May 12, 2014, revisited the long story of Northland farmer Allan Titford who bought land at Maunganui Bluff in 1986 for $600,000 and was subjected to a squatter protest from 1987 during a Waitangi Tribunal claim for part of his land.

Titford had no interest in treaty claim matters until a group of bullying hostile protesters occupied his land and wrecked his business.

The occupation, that included two house fires, verbal abuse, stock thefts, intimidation, vandalism, trespass, cutting fences so that stock would wander, shooting stock, sabotaging Titford’s bulldozer, threatening with a gun, assault, looting, stalled a subdivision project and meant he could not refinance or repay a two-year mortgage.

Eventually, Titford sold the farm to the government for $3.225-million in 1995. Little was heard of the issue until last year when a matrimonial dispute resulted in Titford being jailed for 24 years.

One count he was found guilty of was for burning down his house.

What lies beneath is built around an interview with Alex Nathan of Te Roroa.

In the intro, presenter Mihingarangi Forbes set the scene by saying when Titford “accused the Northland iwi, Te Roroa of being greedy Maori who were after his land”, the country rallied behind him.

Te Roroa, he said, were violent terrorists who burned down his home”.

She went on to say: “Fourteen years later the truth came out – it was Allan Titford who burnt his house down – but some media and lobby groups continue to support him”.

Reporter Iulia Leilua’s 20-minute two-part feature could leave an open-minded viewer thinking that Titford was finally exposed as evil, that Te Roroa claimants were wronged innocents, and that there exists a shadowy but well-funded very right wing conspiracy out to deny Maori of rights.

This complaint shows that What lies beneath was a biased and inaccurate presentation of the Maunganui Bluff land claim issue, that included unfair treatment of protagonist Allan Titford, along with racist and derogatory treatment of his supporters.

The feature breached standards four, five, six, and seven of the broadcasting code.

1. Failed to present significant viewpoints on controversial issues

The Broadcasting Standards Authority is quite clear under Standard 4 – Controversial Issues – Viewpoints that when discussing controversial issues of public importance in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view, either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

 

a) Guideline 4a says significant viewpoints should be presented fairly in the context of the programme.

What lies beneath presented in the intro what Maori TV presenters considered was the mainstream view 22 years ago, after July 4, 1992, when the Titford house burned to the ground.

That view was that Northland iwi Te Roroa were “greedy Maori who were after his land”, who were also “violent terrorists who burned down his home”.

What lies beneath also outlined in the intro the current viewpoint of Maori TV presenters, that “14 years later the truth came out – it was Allan Titford who burnt his house down – but some media and lobby groups continue to support him”.

Two opposing viewpoints were presented in What lies beneath but Maori TV presented the viewpoint it disagreed with in a hostile, pejorative manner, meaning that the viewpoint was not presented fairly.

 

b) A further assessment of whether a reasonable range of views has been presented is described in guideline 4b, which asks whether the programme approaches a topic from a particular perspective.

Maori TV claims to design its programming to deliver a Maori perspective.

It appears that presenters believe that by presenting What lies beneath from the viewpoint of Te Roroa, with Titford being non-Maori they would fulfil the “Maori perspective” role of Maori TV.

However, ifLeilua had asked a few more questions, listened, and looked further, she would have quickly found that Titford’s now estranged wife has Ngapuhi ancestry, and that Ngapuhi leader the late Graham Rankin appealed to the Minister of Treaty Negotiations, Margaret Wilson, to help the Titford family.

Rankin’s view was that the Titfords had been unlawfully dispossessed of their farm at Maunganui Bluff, Northland. [1]

For Maori TV to argue that equating the Te Roroa claim with a Maori perspective fails to understand that part of the dispute over land at Maunganui Bluff was a clash between Te Roroa and Ngapuhi.

As a result of the Battle of Te Ikaranganui in 1825 Ngapuhi dominance over the area was achieved.

Te Roroa were allowed to stay in the area under the protection of Parore Te Awha of Ngapuhi, whose name was on the Maunganui block sale deed.

Tiopira Kinaki, the other vendor named on the 1876 sale deed, was Te Roroa.

The Titford farm and the area on it claimed by Te Roroa were included in the 1876 Maunganui block sale. [2]

2. Failed to be accurate on all points of fact

The Broadcasting Standards Authority is also clear, under Standard 5 Accuracy, that broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming is (1) accurate on all points of fact, and/or (2) does not mislead.

 

a) Forbes in the intro incorrectly said: “fourteen years later the truth came out – it was Allan Titford who burnt his house down”.

In fact the house fire occurred on July 4, 1992, which was 22 years ago, not 14 years as Forbes said.

But more importantly, Titford was found guilty of burning his house, an allegation he continues to deny, and a conviction he plans to appeal or seek a retrial on.

Therefore, the truth or falsity of the statement “Allan Titford … burnt his house down” remains unknown except to the perpetrator.

Moreover, viewers were not made aware of the existence of two sworn statements that cast reasonable doubt on Titford’s guilt regarding the arson.

Reporter Leilua was given copies of these affidavits and had all details explained to her, but there was no reference to this in the final edit.

These affidavits existed at the time of Titford’s trial, but were not introduced as evidence.

Ansell recorded footage of the actual interviews because earlier biased treatment at the hands of Maori TV prompted him to take a cameraman along, something that reporter Leilua strenuously objected to. [3]

 

b) Reporter Leilua said: “By 1876 nearly 90,000 acres of Te Roroa land had been bought by the Crown. However, Te Roroa disputed the inclusion of urupa, reserves, and the lake in the sale arguing that there had been a mistake in the survey”.

The land area quoted by Leilua was incorrect. The Maunganui block upon which the Titford farm was located, was 37,592 acres and the Waipoua block 35,300 acres giving a total of 72,892 acres, which is more than 17,000 acres short of Leilua’s sweeping guess.

Leilua was incorrect to characterize that land as solely belonging to Te Roroa. The Maunganui block was awarded to both Tiopira Kinaki of Te Roroa and Parore Te Awha of Ngapuhi.

Leilua was incorrect to imply Te Roroa at the time disputed the inclusion of urupa, reserves, and the lake. The only dispute at the time of the sale was the Alleged Improper Sale Inquiry 1876 prompted by Tiopira Kinaki when he discovered that Parore Te Awha received an extra £500.

This was nothing to do with what was included in the sale.

Leilua failed to say that the first appearance of a claim for that land, known as Manuwhetai, and another area on a neighbouring farm known as Whangaiariki, was in 1899, after both vendors and all involved in the 1876 sale had died.

Neither did she say that the claim was rejected at that time.

Leilua did not mention a special sitting of the Native Land Court investigating a claim for Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki held in Kaihu in 1939.

Neither did she mention a recommendation by Chief Judge G.P. Shepherd to parliament 1942 that:

• The only reserve in the Maunganui block provided for in the 1876 sale was a 250-acre eel fishery reserve known as Taharoa for vendor Parore Te Awha;
• Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were not mentioned in the deed of sale;
• Neither were they mentioned in the inquiry into the sale held in 1876;
• The sale deed had a certificate to show that vendors Parore Te Awha and Tiopira Kinaki understood the terms of the sale;
• The deed had a certificate to show no fraud had taken place;
• A memo dated February 12, 1876, confirmed that Parore got Taharoa. [4]

Leilua did not say that nothing further was heard of this claim until 1987, after the Waitangi Tribunal was empowered to investigate claims all the way back to 1840, and when Titford began advertising sections in his coastal subdivision.

Leilua did not look into the evidence Te Roroa cited to support their view that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were left out of the sale because of a mistake in a survey.

Te Roroa claimants cited Plan 3297/8 as “proof” that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki had been taken in error by the Crown.

Apparently unaware of Te Roroa reasoning for their claim, Leilua did not look into facts around that purported evidence.

Titford found that Plan 3297/8 was created by surveyors Barnard and Stephens for a landowner named Wi Pou, of the Ngaitu hapu, as part of a proposal to buy from the government two reserves on the south side of Maunganui Bluff.

Those reserves were to be named Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki.

Plan 3297/8 remained in government files as a record of a proposal that did not proceed.

 

c) Leilua said: “Under a National government in 1995, after rejecting numerous offers, Allan Titford finally sold his land to the Crown for five times more than he paid”.

While it is true that the sale price of $3.225-million is about 5.3 times the purchase price, Leilua did not say that the $3.225-million included 1450 head of stock valued at $750,000 and plant at $50,000.

Neither did she say that out of the $3.225-million, $1.8 million went to the National Bank and $425,000 went to other creditors.

Therefore, Titford was left with $200,000 for land he paid $600,000 for nine years earlier

Leilua collected a comment from academic Ranginui Walker who alleged Titford made “a huge profit”. Far from “a huge profit”, Titford came out $400,000 behind after working nine years for nothing and facing bullying from claimants, inaction by police, and stonewalling by the government.

 

d) Guideline 5c says news must be impartial.

The selection of sources for What lies beneath, and the extra time allowed to those supporting the theme of the feature, was far from impartial. Bias appeared in the number and frequency of comments for either Titford or Te Roroa.

For Titford, Ansell was the sole representative and featured in a single, highly selective interview. Doutré, who has supported Titford elsewhere, spoke entirely about evidence for Celtic New Zealand. Former MP Ross Meurant spoke for Titford in old footage. Newman’s single comment was neither about Titford nor Te Roroa.

For Te Roroa, claimant Alex Nathan spoke six times, Taua spoke four times, Ranginui Walker spoke twice, and Moon spoke once.

 

3. Failed to be fair

The Broadcasting Standards Authority is also clear, under Standard 6 – Fairness, that broadcasters should deal fairly with any person or organisation taking part or referred to.

The word “fair” means “treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination”.

For the purpose of guideline 6a, What lies beneath was aired on a current affairs programme, a genre that is expected to be factual.

The feature breached Standard 6 – Fairness in two ways:

 

a) Fair coverage of the Titford/Te Roroa saga would present known facts on both sides of the dispute.

Instead, after jumping to the conclusion that Titford did burn down his house, reporter Leilua recorded Nathan saying: “We knew that we were right”, and subsequent comments were collected to support this view.

Evidence that raised reasonable doubt as to whether Titford started the fire, such as two sworn statements indicating another party had admitted responsibility, was ignored.

This stacking of comments to support the pre-conceived view of both the reporter and the presenter breaches standard 6, guideline 6a, which requires fairness in a factual programme.

 

b) Apparently assuming that Titford burnt his house down and blamed Te Roroa, when reporter Leilua was given two sworn statements creating a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of that assumption, Leilua ignored the affidavits and edited out of the final cut any reference to them by interviewee John Ansell.

This breaches standard 6, guideline 6b, which requires broadcasters to exercise care in editing programme material to ensure that the extracts used are not a distortion of the overall views expressed. [5]

 

4. Encouraged discrimination and denigration

Under Standard 7 – Discrimination and Denigration, broadcasters should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status, or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.

The word “discrimination” refers to making “an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age”.

The word “denigration” means casting “aspersions on, decry, criticize unfairly, attack, speak ill of, speak badly of, blacken the character of, blacken the name of, give someone a bad name, sully the reputation of, or spread lies about”.

What lies beneath breaches Standard 7 because it encourages discrimination against and seeks to denigrate those who criticize the divisiveness of race-based affirmative action and treaty politics.

An encouragement to discriminate against those who criticise treaty politics and race-based affirmative action appeared in the intro to Part 2 of What lies beneath, when presenter Mihingarangi Forbes described Titford supporters as “people who were anti-treaty and anti-Maori, many of whom used their money, time, and connections to push their political agendas”.

The only evidence of support by wealthy individuals of critics of treatyism was an assertion that “rich-lister Alan Gibbs” backed the New Zealand Centre for Political Research that pushes against race-based special treatment.

The feature was silent on the existence of the network of multi-millionaire neo-tribal groups known as the Iwi Leaders Group that pushes for race-based special treatment.

Denigration of those who criticise treaty politics and race-based affirmative action appeared in the title What lies beneath, which captured an implication of a sinister pervasive racist undercurrent, with those drawing attention to the divisiveness of treaty politics castigated as racist.

Smearing a person with the allegation that he or she is racist appears intended to silence debate because it is based on the assumption that no right-minded person would want to speak out for fear of being called a racist.

The denigration of critics of treatyism as racist is in itself racist.

 

Remedy sought

 

Native Affairs staff members have shown an ability to investigate complex stories while asking hard questions. So why did they not do so in this 20-minute two-part feature that aired on Monday, May 12?

Errors in this feature may be remedied by a 20-minute clip on Native Affairs that includes:

 

1. An interview with someone who knows the details of the impact of the occupation at Maunganui Bluff on the Titfords, and the background of the Te Roroa claim for Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki.

 

2. An interview with Alex Nathan that asks:

a) Is it not true that on August 7, 1987, squatters moved on to the beach part of the section in force and erected signs to frighten away any prospective buyers.

b) Is it not true that on August 16, 1987, Hughie Te Rore and Huia White told Titford that if he gave them the land they would drop their tribunal claim.

c) Is it not true that on December 5, 1987, at 1.15pm, Hughie Te Rore and Huia White arrived at the house and said that if Titford removed the buildings used by squatters they would take revenge within 24 hours and it would be nationwide news.

d) Is it not true that on January 12, 1988, a group of claimants in a green Toyota Corona shot stock in Titford’s paddock. Claimants also arranged for the Historic Places Trust to come in and make the site a sacred area.

e) Is it not true that on January 20, 1988, claimants erected a large carved pole on Titford’s land, an event that local councillors, local non-Maori, Maori Marsden, and TVNZ reporters attended.

f) Is it not true that on March 22, 1988, claimant Hugh Te Rore had Conservation Department archaeologist Leigh Johnson (Mr) visit Titford’s farm. Johnson told Titford he had permission to be there from landowner Hugh Te Rore. Johnson also told Titford that the area was from then on wahi tapu and a reserve.

 

3. An interview with Ranginui Walker that asks:

a) Is it not true that the $3.225-million the government paid for the Titford farm included 1450 head of stock valued at $750,000 and plant at $50,000?

b) Is it not true that out of the $3.225-million purchase price, $1.8 million went to the National Bank and $425,000 went to other creditors?

c) Is it not true that Titford was left with $200,000 for land he paid $600,000 for nine years earlier?

d) Do you still stand by your comments that Titford made “a huge profit” out of the sale of his farm?

 

4. An interview with historian Paul Moon that asks:

a) Is it not true that as an historian, past events and old documents are your stock in trade?

b) Therefore, based on your expertise in past events and old documents, is it not true that the only reserve in the Maunganui block provided for in the 1876 sale was a 250-acre eel fishery reserve known as Taharoa for vendor Parore Te Awha?

c) Is it not true that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were not mentioned in the 1876 deed of sale?

d) Is it not true that neither were mentioned in the inquiry into the sale held in 1876?

e) Is it not true that the sale deed had a certificate to show that vendors Parore Te Awha and Tiopira Kinaki understood the terms of the sale?

f) Is it not true that the deed had a certificate to show no fraud had taken place?

g) Is it not true that a memo dated February 12, 1876, confirmed that Parore got Taharoa?

h) Is it not true that the first appearance of a claim for land known as Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki was in 1899, after both vendors and all involved in the 1876 sale had died?

i) Is it not true that Plan 3297/8 was created by surveyors Barnard and Stephens for a landowner named Wi Pou, of the Ngaitu hapu, as part of a proposal to buy from the government two reserves on the south side of Maunganui Bluff. Those reserves were to be named Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki?

j) Is it not true that Plan 3297/8 remained in government files as a record of a proposal that did not proceed?

 ___________________________

[1] Graham Rankin, Letter, June 4, 2001. http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/AllanandSusanvsTheWaitangiTribunal.html

[2] The Sale of Maunganui-Waipoua, The Te Roroa Report 1992. http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/reports/viewchapter.asp?reportID=7df6e15e-2c4d-4dd0-9e60-50a88ffb48a9&chapter=13

[3] See John Ansell’s recorded footage of the actual interviews see https://treatygate.wordpress.com/2014/05/13/what-maori-tv-didnt-show-you/#comments

[4] Native Purposes Act 1938. http://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&d=AJHR1942-I.2.1.8.4&e=——-10–1——0–

[5] See John Ansell’s recorded footage of the actual interviews see https://treatygate.wordpress.com/2014/05/13/what-maori-tv-didnt-show-you/#comments

On TV One Breakfast 7.20am tomorrow

TVNZ rang today seeking my views on the renaming of the North and South Islands.

The so-called ‘public consultation’ phase of the NZ Geographic Board’s no-doubt already-decided Maorification process has apparently closed.

Now it just remains for the government fence-sitter in charge of place names, Maurice Williamson, to fly in the face of 80% of the public and announce that our islands will henceforth be known as Tei Ika a Maui North Island and Te Wai Pounamu South Island.

By the time I’d responded to the reporter’s request to appear on the Breakfast programme, they’d already found someone else.

But after I unloaded my none-too-subtle thoughts on this latest attempt to sidestep the will of the people, her producer decided to put me on after all!

I have a little surprise in store.

Catch me if you can. 7.20am Wednesday.

Single-issue party imminent

Apologies for my silence in recent days. I’ve been preoccupied with making arrangements for a sick mother, attending her sister’s funeral and other housekeeping matters.

Despite Tim Wikiriwhi’s best efforts, the turnout to the Hamilton meeting was disappointing — 50 by my count.

Perhaps my ad, which Tim placed prominently, would have produced a better result if I’d stuck with the usual headline ‘Racial Equality Meeting’ rather than ‘Stop the Surrender of New Zealand to Tribal Tricksters’. I just wanted to see how many Hamiltonians felt passionately enough about stopping the surrender to come along in person.

The answer was not many.

I also wanted to use the occasion to plead with the organisers of the 1LAW4ALL party not to render their name in textspeak. To me, it’s madness to use the language of the Treaty-brainwashed under 30s when the party’s core target market is the literate over 60s.

This is another attempt to persuade them to reconsider.

I was not one of the 16 invitees to the setup meeting for this party (my reputation for forthrightness — or as I would put it, quality before compromise — having preceded me!).

But they did ask me to do their advertising.

On the evidence of that first important creative decision, I declined.

If you’ve followed my career, you’ll note that I don’t hang around long when I don’t trust the client’s judgment. (On the other hand, when the client trusts me to do my job, the result is usually pretty good.)

I hope they change their mind and show more respect for the English language. After all, isn’t that one of the glories of the West we’re supposed to be defending?

It’s fair to say I’m questioning my own value to this cause given these developments. I am an instinctive and rather too emotional creature. I’m hoping my instincts about the rendering of this party’s name are wrong, and that they enjoy every success.

In any case, I plan to keep posting my thoughts here and hope you’ll keep contributing yours.

Must state servants parrot Treaty lies?

This plea from a reader who can’t afford to be identified:

Hi John,

I work in a very PC not-quite-government-department. I’ve been working here for nearly 6 years, and my annual appraisal is about to come up.

One of the things that has come up each year is my reading and understanding of the Treaty as it relates to work.

So far, I’ve managed to evade this subject by just saying “I respect all cultures, and I believe we should all be treated equally”.

(Which is true, by the way.)

Last year, I was told in no uncertain terms that that was not going to be sufficient this year, and I’d have to actually read some of our policies regarding the “Treaty”.

Well, I don’t want to.

I don’t believe in the version of the Treaty that is being shoved down our throats. And quite frankly, I’m also sick and tired of being made out to be the “bad guy” because I’m white.

I’m pretty sure that my contract would have mentioned something about the Treaty. But can I get out of it? Can I say it goes against my “religious” or “cultural” beliefs”?

(Pretty sure that would only work if I was brown.)

I did read very briefly a recent statement which said “we realise Maori don’t have the same access to healthcare as others”. A quick poll at my clinic resulted in blank stares, and “What the hells?”

If you or anyone knows how I might be able to challenge this requirement, I’d love to hear from them.

Keep up the good work.

Regards,
(NAME WITHHELD FOR FEAR OF LOSING JOB)

It’s disgraceful if people who work for the government must parrot the government’s lies in order to keep their jobs.

Would anyone else like to share their experiences of Treaty harassment?

And can our reader legally object to kowtowing to the Treatifarian agenda on religious, cultural or perhaps ethical grounds — on the basis that “I was brought up to tell the truth”?

In the Wikiriwhi man cave

Had dinner at the Wikiriwhis in Hamilton last night. Tim is an engineer, a libertarian, a Christian and a boxer, and Joy, among other things, is an excellent cook. So one way and another, I’m getting well looked after.

Both Tim and I were interviewed by the Waikato Times late yesterday, and a story, accompanied by a photo something like the above (this one shot by Joy in Tim’s man cave) is likely to run tomorrow.

I heard yesterday that a Dunedin meeting has now been confirmed for the evening of 11 June in a lecture theatre of Otago University. Thanks to Colin and Hilary for arranging that.

Before that, we’ve got a Hastings meeting on 7 June. More on these later.

Now to focus on tonight’s meeting at 7.00 pm in the Celebrating Age Centre, 30 Victoria Street, Hamilton.

NOTE: Apparently we’re not allowed into the venue before 6.30pm.

 

Always good to see the ad in print

I’m about to drive to Hamilton for tomorrow night’s meeting.

Today an ad should have appeared on page 2 of the Waikato Times. This one was in the Hamilton News. Good to know that at least one person saw it.

Thanks to Tim Wikiriwhi for organising everything. See you tonight for dinner, Tim.

Looking forward to catching up with you other Waikato readers tomorrow at 7pm at the Celebrating Age Centre, 30 Victoria Street.

Hamilton ad for next Thursday

My Maori colleague Tim Wikiriwhi is doing a great job beating the drum for next Thursday’s Hamilton meeting.

I’ve designed the above ad, which he has placed in today’s Hamilton News and on page 2 of next Wednesday’s Waikato Times.

Thanks to those who have responded to Tim’s appeal to help him pay for it. We’re still short of the required amount, so if you can pop something in the pot,  please email twikiriwhi@yahoo.co.nz and he’ll give you his bank account number.

I know some people are coming down from Auckland and others from Tauranga and Te Kuiti, so I’ll be focusing between now and then on making the trip worth your while!

 

Kupe’s descendant confirms other races were here first

 

Elocal editor Mykeljon Winkel has come up trumps again with a story about Ngapuhi’s achiever chief David Rankin.

ELOCAL

“You recently voiced support for historians who claim that New Zealand was settled much earlier than commonly accepted. Are you merely supporting free speech and political incorrectness, or do you genuinely believe that there were other civilizations here in NZ before the arrival of Kupe circa 1250AD?”

DAVID RANKIN

“Let me just start off and say this, Maori are not the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand. There were many other races already living here long before Kupe arrived. I am his direct descendant and I know from our oral history passed down 44 generations.

I believe this needs to be investigated further because every Maori community talks about Waitaha, Turehu and Patupaiarehe. This goes hand-in-hand with the other research.

As Maori, we have come to a time of maturity where we need to debate these issues. I want to get to a genuine consensus about this issue, although I think academics want it to disappear. If we start talking about it and investigating it, it’s an exciting opportunity to explore.

My ancestors like Kupe came to the Hokianga in search of other people. In the Waima ranges, there was a pipi shelter on the mountains, and the kuia used to talk about the fair skinned people up there.

A lot of people identify as Paniora (translated as Spaniard), indicating that the Portuguese and Spanish washed up on ancient ships in Northland.

In 2002, I went to the Austronesian Leaders Conference in Taiwan and we discussed similarities with Taiwanese Aborigines. We traced our origins and the Maori and Polynesian connection to China.

All the leaders such as myself and Matiu Rei, Aborigines, Solomon islanders, Rapa Nui and Hawaiians were all interested in early settlement theories. There is a lot of writing about the whole ancestral link.

Really, Maori didn’t navigate here, we came on a tidal drift. Te Tai Tokerau is actually the tidal drift from the Tokelau islands. When my ancestors arrived at the shores of Aotearoa, there were people here to greet them. The question is: who are those people?

It goes hand-in- hand with our oral history. There are questions written by Ian Wishart, Noel Hilliam and others that need to be answered.”

Elocal has championed the quest for more openness on pre-Maori settlement in New Zealand. The case is well-summarised in a recent story by Raynor Capper on the Waipoua Forest stone city subtitled Undeniable Proof of NZ Civilisation Before Kupe.

Most interesting to me is National Archives’ 75-year embargo of evidence found in a three-year state investigation of 500 acres of the 25,000 acre historical treasure trove in the 1980s.

Is the idea of a pre-Maori stone city in the Waipoua Forest the ludicrous fantasy of nutters, as  our haughty Appeaser-General Chris Finlayson claims?

If so, why must we wait until 2063 to see what state investigators found there in the 1980s? 

ELOCAL

“What do you think the ramifications would be if Maori appeared not to be the indigenous people of New Zealand?”

DAVID RANKIN

“That would put all our treaty claims in question and our indigenous rights at the UN. It would open up a whole can of worms. I do believe if we start approaching it the right way other Maori would be keen to discuss it.

I think there has been a rot been allowed to set in to Maoridom since the Lange government took power in the early 1980s.

In many ways, all the changes that have taken place have taken the basic responsibility away, their mana, from being true Maori, like working for a living, educating themselves and their families, leading strong lives and observing the laws of the land.

If you are able to work then work! Help your fellow Maori and Pakehas be successful in life. Being Maori — and, let’s face it, you only need to be 32% by government standards — does not mean you need to take the easy way out and have your hand out.

I have never taken anything from the government, I am self made, strong and I say stop the funding. Maori need to return to the warriors they once were.

It may be hard at first but intergenerational beneficiaries are embarrassing to my culture.”

2 hours on The Vinny Eastwood Show from 10am Saturday

Listen to Treatygate LIVE on Saturday from 10am (not 12pm as it says above) at
American Freedom Radio.

Tomorrow, Saturday 11 May from 10am — 12pm (NOT 12pm-2pm as it says above), I’ll be broadcasting to the world via Skype on American Freedom Radio’s The Vinny Eastwood Show.

(No, I won’t be making light of genocide — especially the Taranaki genocide of the Moriori.)

Vinny is a marvel of the internet age, a 29 year old Westie revolutionary broadcasting out of a home studio in Glen Eden to up to 100,000 pairs of ears worldwide.

As his alter ego MR NEWS says, he covers “everything the mainstream media leaves out, so as you can imagine I’m quite busy!”

One of those things is Treatygate, so I’m grateful that guys like Vinny are there to pick up the slack.

The interview will go out live as a radio broadcast at 10am. Then Vinny will upload the Skype video to his You Tube channel. Also, nine New Zealand radio stations from Invercargill to Wanganui will run the programme as a delayed broadcast.

Vinny’s two-hour show five days a week is one of the mainstays of AFR. 

No pressure!

Vinny has more brands than an old Texan cattle ranch. Guerilla Media is another.

MR NEWS, Vinny’s You Tube channel, gets more views than NZ Herald TV.

Vinny at a pub in Glen Eden, where I bought him a beer or two
for loaning me his recording gear that Mike Butler and I used
(and mercifully managed not to get smashed) at Waitangi.

Catch Vinny and me on American Freedom Radio on Saturday from 10am till noon.

Or join The Vinny Eastwood Show chat room.

And/or call up the show on 001-218-339-8525.

What’s going to be weird is that, unlike in my recent two hour stint with Jackson and Tamihere on Radio Live — in fact, unlike nearly all of my other media appearances so far — I won’t be outnumbered by two or three opponents barking over the top of me.

This assumes that Vinny will be his normal amiable self. (Which he will be, because any enemy of the government is a friend of Vinny’s. :-))

Hope you can join us. 10am tomorrow.

Akonga post updated

Sorry folks, I see that somehow my post about the NZ Teachers Council renaming ‘learners’ ‘akonga’ got posted deep in the blog where only subscribers would have seen it.

I’ve now moved it to just below the post about Oamaru North School. I think the ‘akonga’ renaming crosses a line. Have a read and see if you agree.

NZ Teachers Council insist learners are now ‘akonga’

In their relentless mission to degrade Western civilisation and prioritise the primitive, the NZ Teachers Council now insist that any teacher wanting to be registered must stop calling children ‘learners’ and refer to them at all times as ‘akonga’.

(Naturally, they remember to put a macron over the first ‘a’ in akonga, but forget to put a possessive apostrophe after the ‘s’ of Teachers. No doubt they regard punctuation as an evil colonial affectation.)

Like the Constitutional Advisory Panel, the teachers have also taken it upon themselves to change the name of our country while they’re about it.

Just in case you think their akonga edict is voluntary, read this…

And this…

That’s right: there is no longer any place for any English language quotations in the English language version of the Teachers Council Registered Teacher Criteria handbook.

The glories of the language of Shakespeare are as nothing compared to the pronouncements of the wise kaumatua.

Part of the brainwashing process requires our new teachers to ask themselves the following (this is a montage of questions dotted throughout the Holy Criteria)…

This from the home page of the website.

Naturally the teacher is brown and her ‘akonga’ are white.

My next illustration is my attempt to put it all in disgraceful perspective.

Didn’t Gramsci and co. do well?

What we’re seeing is the socialists joining forces with New Zealand’s communist primitivists as part of the plan to topple the West.

(I must say I’m surprised the Christians are leading the charge to capitulate with their Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia. They should be proud of saving Maori from the depravities of cannibalism and intertribal genocide, but why they want to surrender their culture to the descendants of those tribesmen is a mystery.)

Clearly our schools are now Orwellian state indoctrination units where…

SS-T poll: 70% No to Maori seats, 56% No to Treaty Principles

More poll results for our expanding collection.

According to last week’s Sunday Star-Times survey on Constitutional matters, 70% of 3800 readers want to ditch the Maori seats, while 25.6% want to keep them…

And 56.3% don’t want the Treaty principles in any written constitution, while 34.4% do…

In another question, 87.8% of readers want to see any written constitution ratified by referendum.

Invading the Waikato, May 16th

Tim Wikiriwhi, taking on the Grievers in The Great Waitangi Debate.

My next meeting will be very different.

It will be in Hamilton at 7.00pm on Thursday May 16th at the Celebrating Age Centre, 30 Victoria Street.

I’m proud to say that, for the first time, I have a Maori colleague publicly supporting me. So much so that he’s enthusiastically volunteered to organise the meeting.

Tim Wikiriwhi is a brave, passionate and articulate New Zealander. He’s a Christian Libertarian, which I’m not, and we don’t agree on everything. But we sure as hell agree on this.

He’s one of the few Maori to demonstrate the courage to stand up to the  thuggish part-descendants of the 1860s rebels who falsely claim to represent their race.

When TVNZ’s Marae programme needed a Maori to oppose the Griever view, it was Tim they turned to. And he did brilliantly.

It’s my goal with Together New Zealand to encourage those Maori with achiever values to seize back the mantle of Maoridom that has been stolen and tarnished by the backward-looking grievers. Tim could be just the man to do it.

He’s going to speak before me, and he’ll be a hard act to follow.

Inspired by Tim, my own performance won’t be the usual evidence-packed slideshow I’ve been casually narrating thus far.

This one will be a speech!

The Celebrating Age Centre, 30 Victoria Street — scene
of many a political speech in Hamilton, including mine.

See you on the 16th.

70% of Waikanae audience would vote for single-issue party

Invoking the spirit of Margaret Thatcher at the Waikanae meeting.
New Zealand badly needs politicians with “the guts to do what’s right”.
PHOTO: NED PEKO.

We had a full house of 160 at the Kapiti Coast U3A meeting on Monday.

Since I’d been there twice before performing my after-dinner speech about the crazy English language, I started a few minutes early with Tom Lehrer’s Elements Song and my own song about Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch!

(With my gruelling day job, it’s good for me to return to the humour now and then. I’ve also just accepted an invitation to to be guest poet at Wairarapa Words in Carterton on May 5th.)

My Treatygate/Together New Zealand presentation was compressed into 45 minutes, which was a little rushed for my liking.

SCF is, of course, South Canterbury Finance.
PHOTO: NED PEKO.

Since most people were not Treatygate groupies, I polled them before and after my talk on how much of a problem they thought Treaty issues had become.

At the start, a handful said ‘not a problem’, but most were evenly split between ‘a bit of a problem’ and ‘a big problem’.

Observer Lindsay Perigo was struck by how many had migrated from ‘bit’ to ‘big’ after seeing my evidence.

Surprisingly, about 70% of this random group of intelligent older folk said they would vote for a single issue party to end Apartheid Aotearoa.

Thanks to my friend Ned for the photos — and the beer and Shiraz afterwards.

Did Dad go to war so the National Party could surrender his country?

Left: Wearing the medals Dad never wore.
Right and below: Dad, 91, after laying the wreath at a BNZ ANZAC Ceremony, 2011.

Dear Dad,

How’s things up there? It’s been eighteen months now. We all miss your warmth and your humour, and will always treasure the example you set us of utter integrity. No doubt you’re having a ball with your old mates. Say hi to Nana and Uncle Bill and Auntie Minna.

And Steve Jobs. Have you persuaded him to be your personal computer tutor, as I predicted at your funeral?

This is just to say that, after 68 years, your medals have finally been to a Dawn Parade.

You never wore them, did you? Not even when your beloved BNZ asked you to lay the wreath at that ANZAC service in 2011.

I was so proud to be there with you that day. Your interview for the Archives has become a family heirloom. I’ve even put it on You Tube.

(Don’t ask. Just know that someone from Qatar has just been watching you talk about Guadalcanal.)

Anyway, my old mate John T suggested it might be good for us to go to yesterday’s Dawn Parade.

I wasn’t so sure. Had to admit I’d never been to one. You know I’m not a morning person, Dad.

But then I thought of you.

I thought about how you once volunteered for something even more traumatic than getting up at five.

World War Two.

That must have been a tad daunting, given your position as the world’s least violent man. How could you possibly have killed anyone?

(Yes I know — you’d have used your legendary persuasive skills to politely convince your Japanese opponent to fall on his sword.)

Then I thought about how, in 1919, Nana named you Vivian after her brother John Vivian Telfer, who hadn’t made it back from Gallipoli four years earlier.

(The vicar at the service told us that one in seventeen New Zealanders died in that war. That’s one in eight men. Maybe one in four young men. Then Spanish flu followed them home and decimated the survivors.)

I thought about young J.V. being ordered to go over the top at daybreak, and the odds against him replying: “Honestly I’d love to, Sarge, but if it’s all the same to you — what with all the noise and the flies and the body parts flying everywhere — I haven’t been sleeping well lately and I could really do with another couple of hours’ kip.”

Either way he was done for.

How much my boys’ and my generation take for granted, thanks to him — and you.

John Vivian Telfer, my great-uncle.
Killed at Gallipoli, 1915.

And so, since I’m a John and you’re Vivian, I thought I’d honour that young man — as well as my favourite old one.

Well before sunrise, I lifted your medals out of that old Pitcairn Island book box to which you unceremoniously consigned them after the war.

I took care to pin them on the right side of my jacket — to make it clear that they’d been earned by someone else, not me.

(No, I didn’t know I wasn’t supposed to wear the bar as well!)

Thought I’d better wear a suit, in case you were watching. John wore shorts. Most wore jeans. But all the old guys wore jackets, and I was representing one of their finest.

It was a moving occasion, as dozens if not hundreds of Martinborough locals fell sombrely in behind the town’s tiny and dwindling band of old soldiers, their numbers swelled by firemen and servicemen and schoolchildren.

The bugling was stirring, the singing atrocious — a typically Kiwi monotonous mass mumble — especially the first verse of the national anthem.

As the vicar’s soothing words trailed away in the dawn’s early light, we trooped off to the Town Hall for refreshments, where the woman from the church who served me coffee was one Deborah Coddington.

(We greeted each other politely. What Deborah didn’t know was that I’d been thinking of challenging her to a Treaty debate in that very venue. But ANZAC Day didn’t feel like the time.)

Deborah — ACT MP turned Constitutional Advisory Panellist and wife of iwi lawyer Colin Carruthers — reminded me of the other reason I was there.

It was to remind myself that you and all your mates, Dad, did not help God defend New Zealand just so a bunch of gutless appeasers — a chamber of Chamberlains — could one day give away the country you fought for to a bunch of conniving fractional-descendants of the tribesmen who wanted to wipe out your great-grandmother.

(Where else in the world do the descendants of the winners of a war of rebellion pay reparations to the descendants of the losers?!)

I remember you telling me  how you kids in the 1920s hated having to kiss great-grandma’s furry face at family picnics. So I looked her up…

Alice Telfer. Born: Auckland, 1845. Died: Auckland, 1946. What a life — from Heke’s War to Hiroshima!

But here’s the sobering fact they don’t teach in our state indoctrination facilities…

If Governor Grey hadn’t made the Kingites think again after they’d threatened to massacre every man, woman and child in Auckland, Alice Telfer would have been dead — shot, if she was lucky, tomahawked if not — at fifteen.

Sergeant Viv Ansell, bottom left, between puffs.

The tribal tripe is getting worse by the month, Dad.

Just last week some loony judge fined a chopper pilot $3750 for offending our highest mountain — now officially, would you believe, a Ngai Tahu ancestor.

The Taupo troughers are not only stinging triathletes like jellyfish for swimming in our largest lake, they reckon they can get away with charging millions a year to power generators for storing their water in it.

Water that has very conveniently fallen out of the sky!

(A sky which they do not yet own, but undoubtedly will the next time the Maori Party hold the balance of power — which, after the Maori roll campaign, according to Colin James, is going to be more often than not.)

Come to think of it, with foxes like Finlayson in charge of the Treaty henhouse, they probably won’t have to wait that long.

Anyone with a nanodroplet of brown blood, an ounce of creativity, and an ability to keep a straight face while emotionally blackmailing Tangata Whinlayson (not easy, admittedly) is quids in.

Dad (left) and an army mate with a Fijian chief.

Sorry my generation’s been such a disappointment, Dad. Sorry we’re letting the country you fought for break in two.

(Your church, by the way, has broken in three — the ‘Anglican church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia’.)

Your old colleagues still talk about you as the BNZ’s change agent of the 60s and 70s. The way your successors brought the bank to its knees in the 80s made you as angry as I’d ever seen you.

Well, that’s how I feel about what my former employer Key has been doing to New Zealand.

A bank can be bailed out. But once a country’s gone, it’s gone.

And New Zealand is going fast. Key is driving more people away than Clark did. The escapees write to me from Queensland. They all give the same reason: the Maorification of Everything.

(And a lot of them are Maori.)

I don’t have your patience, and we don’t have the time. It’s next election or never.

I’ll do the best I can with what I’ve got.

See you later,

John

Judge fines chopper pilot $3750 for gravely offending Mt Cook

Helicopter gravely offending Mt Cook — according to racist judge Joanna Maze.

Add the name of Judge Joanna Maze to New Zealand’s lengthening list of racist jurists.

Judge Maze actually thought she was being generous in fining a chopper pilot only $3750 for gravely offending Ngai Tahu’s ‘ancestor’ Aoraki (AKA Mt Cook) by hovering over it.

(Sorry, him.)

Maze thought this totally victimless crime so appalling that her “starting point for sentencing had to be the maximum penalty available, a fine of $5000.”

(She eventually let him off with $3750 in recognition of his early guilty plea.)

In passing sentence, Judge Joanna Maze said the offence was “seen as one of sacrilege to those to whom Aoraki/Mt Cook is of central cultural importance”.

“The fact that you did it in the interests of trade … is a double offence,” she said.

Tut-tut, you evil money-grubbing capitalist pilot pig. Don’t you know that only Maori are allowed to profit from showing our visitors the wondrous views of our highest mountain?

You will be unsurprised to learn that your Department of Conservation has been complicit in the judicial indulgence of the now-official Maori state religion.

In the summary of facts read to the court, the Department of Conservation (DOC) said the 3754-metre peak represented, to Ngai Tahu, “the most sacred of ancestors, from whom Ngai Tahu descend and who provide the iwi with its sense of communal identity, solidarity and purpose”.

It may be a fact that the more deranged Maori think they’re descended from a mountain. But that’s no reason for state officials to indulge their fantasy and pretend they’re correct. (Or even sane.)

And yet DOC’s website, without any hint of irony, presents such childish superstition as the God-honest truth.

In the increasingly-irrelevant world of the 21st century grown-up, the only people who descend from mountains do so on foot.

And since — correct me if I’m wrong — Maori had yet to invent the shoe by 1840, I doubt whether their ancestors did a lot of ascending or descending above the snowline, let alone to and from the pinnacle of our pre-eminent peak.

Their inability to get anywhere near the summit of Mt Cook may explain why they held it in such high esteem.

(Though what possessed them to imagine the frozen mass to be a blood relative is unclear. Perhaps the old fern root has more hallucinogenic properties than I thought.)

Just because the white man is able to float above their make-believe ancestor in a one-winged steel bird, doesn’t mean these primitive party-poopers should be able to deprive others of the chance to get up close and personal with it.

(Sorry, him.)

Meetings update – Waikanae Monday, Whangarei and Hamilton delayed, Hastings 7 June

WAIKANAE — MONDAY 22 APRIL

My next meeting is this coming Monday 22 April at Parklands Social Centre, Parkwood Retirement Village, Waikanae.

(Not Parkwood Lodge, as I mistakenly told you before — that’s the hospital!)

Coming in the Sylvan Avenue entrance, the Social Centre is in front of you on the right.

On this occasion, I’ve been asked to address the Kapiti U3A (University of the 3rd Age), a group I’ve entertained twice before with my Dances With Words talk about the crazy English language.

This time they’re welcoming me in my new more serious incarnation, and the public are welcome.

I’m the second speaker of the morning. The first finishes at 10.30am, then they break for a cuppa, then it’s me from 11.00 — 12.00.

WHANGAREI AND HAMILTON — DELAYED

My Whangarei and Hamilton meetings will NOT now be on the 1st and 2nd of May as I previously advertised. My brave Maori colleague-in-arms Tim Wikiriwhi is putting his all into arranging the Hamilton meeting, but the Hamilton City Council are dragging the chain confirming his preferred venue.

So we may hold it on the 9th or later. Stay tuned.

HASTINGS — 7 JUNE

Meanwhile Hastings and District Grey Power have invited me to talk about constitutional matters on Friday 7 June at 2pm at the Hastings Baptist Church.

You and your friends are welcome.

By then I will have attended all five of the New Zealand Centre for Public Law’s Constitutional Debates, so should be reasonably clued-up.

(At the first two of these, I got to ask the first question, and the first of these questions made the only radio broadcast so far. I will soon post my detailed account of the first ‘debate’.)