Allan Titford, Mike Butler, Paul Moon

Mike Butler to Paul Moon: 6 tricky Titford questions

Allan Titford - photo of Maunganui Bluff farm

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” .

Bit of an own goal there, Paul. By using that term, you simply remind us of your fondness for red herring fallacies, including ad hominem attacks and poisoning the well.

For example:

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:

  1. 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?
  2. Did the Te Roroa Report 1992 relitigate a claim that had been rejected in 1942?
  3. 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?
  4. 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?
  5. And why is the Titford-Te Roroa scrap deemed racial when Susan Cochrane (Kakarana) has fine Ngapuhi ancestry?
Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Mike Butler to Paul Moon: 6 tricky Titford questions

  1. Anyone that understands the audit trail of NZ history from 1840 through to the discovery of the authenticated Busby final draft in 1989 and has read Paul Moons book “New Zealand Birth Certificates. 50 of New Zealand’s Founding Documents” will know Mr Moon is a very selective historian.

    1. The exception to Paul Moon’s one-eyed support for the Maori radical cause is, of course, his gruesomely detailed, doorstep-sized tome about precolonial cannibalism, This Horrid Practice.

      Armed with this, he can make a case that he is impartial, but too many other failures suggest otherwise.

  2. It is not the maori radicals who are the only problem, this was taken from a Royal NEW ZEALAND Navy ex communicators site.

    The Earth centred on Aotearoa (NZ) and signifies the elements of Land, Sea and Air that makes up the environment the RNZN operates from and in;

    1. I should have added that the last sentence is from the Chief of Navy, who perhaps would prefer to be titled Chief of the Royal Aotearoa Navy

  3. Some thoughts:

    I have yet to read the full article, but I believe that teaching the kiddies to interpret Maori as “the other part of New Zealand”, as opposed to just fellow New Zealanders who happen to get less sunburnt, lays the foundation for racism as it teaches people that Maori are *different* to the rest of us ie. US and THEM.

    It teaches kids to categorise on the basis of race, which I believe lays the foundation for racism.

    I also ponder if this whole treaty thing is ultimately functioning as a distraction for the need for a REAL constitution in New Zealand, like what America has. A constitution that limits the power of government.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s