The Maunganui Bluff farm that the Titfords were forced off.
How many other wrongs make that wrong right?
“Historian” Paul Moon has never been one to let a total absence of logic get in the way of a political diatribe.
On the Littlewood document, Moon famously proclaimed that “It can’t be a treaty because it wasn’t signed”.
(Which may sound plausible to a new chum. Until we point out that no proponent of the Littlewood document has ever said it was a treaty. It was the final English draft for translation into the Maori tiriti. So of course it would not be signed.)
In his latest dereliction of his duty of balanced reporting, Moon uses Allan Titford’s conviction on personal charges to declare all of his claims of state document tampering and tribal harassment a “fallacy” .
For years, Allan Titford and his many supporters fashioned a dystopian and blatantly racist vision of New Zealand’s future, in which avaricious Maori tribes, together with obsequious politicians, would slowly but surely trample over private property rights.
Which, of course, is exactly what the state did in forcing Titford off his Maunganui Bluff farm, despite a string of politicians from Lange to Key promising the country that no farmer would ever lose his land to a tribal claim.
Again, our resident honest journalist Mike Butler poses some tricky questions to yet another lopsided commentator.
Questions for Dr Paul Moon
Historian Paul Moon asks, in alleging jailed farmer Allan Titford’s mania fed a racial rift, where was the public defence of Te Roroa people who were vilified by Titford?
Here are some questions for Moon:
- Did Titford not buy a freehold title farm in November 1986 and was lawfully farming and subdividing his land when dogged by a claimant protest from August 7, 1987?
- Did the Te Roroa Report 1992 relitigate a claim that had been rejected in 1942?
- Is it not true that in the Te Roroa Report, the only proof that the land called Manuwhetai on the Titford farm, and Whangaiariki on Don Harrison’s farm, was omitted from the 1876 sale, was an assertion by the Waitangi Tribunal that it was left out?
- Is it not true that Plan 3253 attached to the 1876 Maunganui block sale shows a single reserve, and that was 250 acres at Lake Taharoa, and the land described as Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were not marked or mentioned?
- And why is the Titford-Te Roroa scrap deemed racial when Susan Cochrane (Kakarana) has fine Ngapuhi ancestry?