A teacher who needs to remain anonymous for fear of losing his career saw my Native Affairs debate with Annette Sykes on 19 May and immediately lodged the BSA complaint that you can read below.
Before you read his complaint, I thought you should read his theory about how blinkered Treatifarians like Sykes are able to shamelessly sidestep any inconvenient truth that threatens their claim of entitlement to your money.
The show itself was the typical Native Affairs ambush, which I thoroughly enjoyed. I must also praise the staff at Maori TV, who are always unfailingly courteous and helpful to me — and have the best green room food of any channel. (Thank you taxpayers!)
Despite the hostility from mein host Mihingarangi (AKA Joanna) Forbes, I managed to air many points, and Forbes’ rude outbursts provoked such an outcry that we’ve been able to open up a new front in the battle: complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Association.
Please join in the fun and lodge your own.
I dared to suggest that colonisation had massively advantaged Maori.
Mihi Forbes countered with “Then what about all the Maori crime etc.?”
I answered as above. Annette Sykes’ response was fascinating, expanding
my horizons on French cuisine.
I’m not sure why Maori TV asked me back only a week after I’d posted raw footage of the Titford interview, where I gave them the affidavits showing that Sue’s father had burned down the Titford house, not Allan.
(Evidence which they neglected to screen.)
I certainly wasn’t their first choice for the follow-up story, which they made clear by mentioning the names of four other commentators who’d declined their invitation.
Forbes’ bias first surfaced when she sneered at One New Zealand’s Ross Baker for not appearing “because he lives in Australia”. In fact Ross had been happy to go on the show — knowing he’d be ridiculed — if Maori TV paid his airfare. They wouldn’t.
Her bias was most apparent after I was at last able to mention my evidence that Allan Titford was innocent of burning down his own house.
And what was Forbes’ priority upon learning that a man has been locked up for 24 years, almost solely on the say-so of a woman who appears to have lied?
Was it to sympathise with the incarcerated man and demand a retrial, as any fair person would have done?
Her priority was to demand that I apologise for Allan Titford’s previous blaming of the highly plausible but now exonerated suspects, Te Roroa.
Given that even his bitter ex-wife acknowledges that Te Roroa shot Allan’s stock and committed numerous other acts of sabotage and intimidation over many years, I was not about to offer any such apology simply because the tribe’s list of offences had reduced by one.
(My opponents might say the same about Allan Titford’s list of offences. But I also have evidence that casts doubt on at least two of the rapes. And if Sue has lied about the arson and the rapes, what does that suggest about her other 36 charges?)
I did mention on the programme that Allan himself has written in recent times that he doubts Te Roroa committed the arson — even though he did not know at that stage who did. The so-called moderator ignored this, preferring to focus on the time when he did consider the tribe responsible.
With no regard for the evidence on the affidavit, Forbes then blithely accused “a member of the Titford family” of burning down the house.
Clearly, she had no interest whatsoever in acquainting herself with the facts or seeking justice for a falsely imprisoned Pakeha, only with cynically using the new evidence to invoke sympathy for Maori.
A TEACHER COMMENTS
(The words from here on, apart from the photo
captions, are those of the teacher complainant.)
Though I don’t expect anything to come of this, any opportunity to provoke self-criticism and self-analysis in our opponents should be seized. And nothing will irritate them more than having to draft a response to my complaint (“the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass”).
I am genuinely intrigued to know how they will defend themselves against the accusations. For, these are people who seem to possess an in-built mechanism to resist self-criticism. They are saddled with their own self-deceptions and this distorts their entire worldview.
To be sure, there are those who are knowingly cynical and act accordingly, but the opponents that you faced on Monday night really did seem to be convinced that they were in the right.
Another enjoyable Maori TV ambush. Native Affairs, Monday 19 May
with Mihi Forbes and Annette Sykes.
I once visited the concentration camp in Dachau and I remember discussing with the tour guide the curious phenomenon of high-ranking Nazi officials who refused to plead guilty to crimes against humanity during the Nuremberg trials.
Even when confronted with evidence of genocide, they could not bring themselves to denounce the Nazi regime. How could this be?
We came to the conclusion that they had so utterly based their identity on the Nazi ideology that without this prop, their sense of self would have collapsed into nothingness.
In other words, their resistance to self-criticism and self-doubt was a psychological survival mechanism.
(Analogies drawn from the Nazi era are never very tasteful, but I think this one does shed some light on the Annette Sykes and the Willie Jacksons of Maoridom.)
So, what is needed is more skepticism and less identity politics.
Have radicals like Annette Sykes (who’s father was born in England so is less
native to New Zealand than John Ansell) “so utterly based their identity on the
[Maori] ideology that without this prop, their sense of self would collapse”?
Unfortunately, Annette Sykes seems to disagree with me on both counts. I did some research about her prior to your television appearance and I actually heard her say that what New Zealand needs is a “commitment to decolonisation”.
(To me, this has disturbing echoes of the Khmer Rouge catch-cry to “clear the ground.”)
It never ceases to amaze me how people like Annette Sykes can pass through the university system without having fostered any sympathy for Western cultural and intellectual traditions.
(Without the sense that the Greeks and the Romans and the French and the Germans and the Russians and the Italians and maybe even the British may have something more to offer than the songs and the dances and the wood carvings that have been preserved within Maoridom. And this from a law graduate!)
Maybe it’s because the Western intellectual tradition — which begins with Socrates — was founded on skepticism, and skepticism invites self-criticism…
THE TEACHER’S BSA COMPLAINT
The Maori TV bio of Mihingarangi Forbes (Joanna until she changed her name
while attending a Waikato Maori-immersion college), included the revealing
comment: “Mihi always knew she would work in communications because she
told such tall stories as a kid.” She was still at it on Monday. [JA]
My teacher friend complains as follows. You may wish to follow the same format. You should address your complaint in the first instance to Maori TV, then when they inevitably reject your concerns, report them to the BSA.
Date of Broadcast
19 May 2014
Time of Broadcast
Programme standard(s) breached
Free-to-air TV –
1: Good Taste and Decency, Free-to-air TV
4: Controversial Issues – Viewpoints, Free-to-air TV
5: Accuracy, Free-to-air TV
6: Fairness, Free-to-air TV
7: Discrimination and Denigration, Free-to-air TV
8: Responsible Programming, Free-to-air TV
During the live ‘debate’ involving John Ansell on last night’s episode of Native Affairs, the following standards were breached:
I refer to to the presenter’s treatment of both the Alan Titford trial and the Treaty of Waitangi.
A set formula (in both cases) was clearly advanced and the contrarian guest (John Ansell) was set up as a strawman to be discredited and made to look foolish.
In the introduction, the growing number of groups who are casting doubt on modern interpretations of the Treaty of Waitangi were referred to as “racist hate groups”.
Disgracefully branded a racist hater, Martin Doutre spent years living with
Maori and learning about the pre-Maori Patuparaiahe people. They were
more honest times, before the Treaty grievance industry made it harder for
kaumatua to tell the truth about their history.
Concerning Alan Titford, evidence that was presented by John Ansell to prove his innocence was discarded with the words “well, he has been tried and found guilty already” (or words to that effect).
Also, there was no effort made to educate the viewers as to the controversies surrounding the Titford case and the Treaty of Waitangi.
Defenders of Alan Titford and, shall we say, ‘Treaty skeptics’, were misrepresented (as crackpots) and their views were denigrated and distorted.
In a previous episode, evidence presented by John Ansell that proved the mendacity of his accusers was omitted and suppressed.
Also, John Ansell was not given a fair opportunity to speak during the ‘debate’ owing to the presenter’s nasty hectoring.
DISCRIMINATION AND DENIGRATION
Describing Treaty skeptics as racists and members of hate groups, refusing to acknowledge evidence that absolves Titford of guilt, pretending that the views expressed by John Ansell are not shared by serious academics (like David Round, for instance).
Indoctrinating your people with false information, instilling a victimhood mentality, promoting tribalism and solipsism — these things are not good for Maori, they are not good for our country, and they are not good for the world.
Ignoring evidence when some poor sod has to sit in prison for 24 years having lost everything is also not very responsible.
The violence that was wrought on truth, good taste and decency was more than I could bear. For sheer barbarism, no amount of rugby or boxing coverage could ever have quite the same effect.
Urging your guest to apologise at the end of the debate was particularly graceless.
GOOD TASTE AND DECENCY
12 thoughts on “Teacher lodges BSA complaint about Native Affairs bias”
That is excellent, John. I look forward to the BSA’s response. I hope there are many other complaints. I feel a bit guilty not doing one myself but don’t have the confidence to do so. I absolutely agree with everything the teacher said.
To maintain credibility, ANY group must be able to have points of discussion tabled without obstruction and possible “interpreted” by QUALIFIED, people, rather than it’s supporters or detractors. TRUTH may not always be pleasant, but it must be up to all people to decide on their own conscience, after seeing ALL evidence available. The measure of our maturity is to be able to identify what is correct and to MOVE ON from there, with the lessons learned, to better OUR Nation
The problem, Patrick, is that the more we investigate the ‘qualified’ people, the more we find that their qualifications were awarded by state Marxist indoctrination units or racist Maori madrassas.
They are qualified only to function as brainwashed performing parrots for a particularly odious political ideology.
Thus I prefer to rely on the research of honest, curious people who are motivated by truth, not ideology.
(As I tell Martin Doutre, he may be “just a carpenter”, but then so was Jesus.)
Thanks to one-eyed historians like Claudia Orange, Anne Salmond, James Belich and Paul Moon, it’s hardly surprising that New Zealand social science degrees are rated the least credible in the OECD.
John thanks for fronting up to Maori T.V and giving native affairs a chance to show the world how hopelessly biased and racist they are.There is not many bit Maori separatist bullshit busters around we need more people prepared to tell the truth like you.
Please keep it up.
Thank you for posting the teachers complaint.I live in Australia and viewed the debate on the Vinny Eastwood show.I have nothing but admiration for the leadership you are showing for the majority of NZers who really want the
issue of treatymania to disappear from our lives so we can relax and get on with our lives without fear or anxiety.
You have humanist values and you debate them well.
Racist you are not.
I posted the following on the Vinny Eastwood website in response to a comment;;
To understand fully the plight of the Maori presently one may need to refer back to beginning of western civilization 350 ce to the present.There were three groups who were identified as rightful heirs,the Church (Jews and Christians),Byzantine and Islamic societies and an additional group the germanic who were claimants and lived outside the boundaries of the Roman empire but who claimed heritage via their “civilized” members who were brilliant adherents to the empire eventually rising to the elite class of millitary emperorship the first of these being Julius Caesar.
Tacitus described the uncivilized members of that Germanic group as the great prose writers of the union wrote of the Maori.back in the day.
Western civilization under Constantine flourished. He oversaw the region of Brittany become an iron and steel making industry due to its prolific resources.The Germanic peoples followed the work and entrenched themselves in to the roughest part of the old empire and the history of Great Britain was begun.
The Celtic Britons, the Pictii and numerous other Caledonian tribes were the next peoples to assimilate and integrate and did not they put up a mighty defence until the light of day was revealed to them.
Feudalism was introduced by William in 1066 and for the first time in history saw the peasant given the right to petition the King.
Unfortunately a large group of the Germanic Anglo Saxon left the region after the defeat of their leader Harold. They set sail for Kiev in a flotilla of approx. 350 ships. Some of these ships were blown back to Scotland and those chose to stay in the highlands.
So these tribes did the hard yards in terms of integration and assimilation and look at how succesfull they had become in times of extreme poverty and hardship.
The Maori in terms cannot be described as living in anything like the conditions our Germanic and British ancestors had to endure.
I believe this history is what John Ansell is basing his argument around.
He speaks of the Maori in similar vein to the Roman Senator Gregory the Great who saw exactly the same potential in the Celtic Britons circa 500-600ce.
Personally I believe the chain of dissent has been dragged on for too long by the Maori radicals and it is time to confront the issue.
Vinny Eastwood has proven himself as possibly one of the greatest moderators on this contentious subject I have ever seen and comparisons with Sir George Grey are not astray in my opinion.
I have studied for years my quadruple ancestry of Maori, Anglo Saxon, French Basque and Nordic.
My New Zealand heritage was formed initially by the French Basque whalers who arrived pre 1840 and settled in Northland and later the region of Tauranga.His name was Pierre Poitier.
Incidentally my Ancestor was courted by George Grey and was one of the last Big Skulls to sign the treaty which was conveyed to Tauranga for the purpose. Our family lands were protected by law assisted by Gov Grey. They remain to this day.
I have lived in Australia for most of my life but am never out of touch with my inheritance.Though nowadays my relatives in New Zealand
are just rugby loving Kiwis there is a minority who have aligned themselves with the activists and have begun to spoil things for the rest of us.
The situation has become so bad I have instructed my children and grandchildren to the impending dangers of physical assault my innocent relatives are receiving from those affected by activism.
It must end sooner than later.
Thanks for that John. Yours is precisely the attitude required: to be proud of your Maori heritage, but not to glorify the cannibal warrior days with endless hakas and powhiris and blaming of the coloniser, any more than you glorify the bloody rampages of your Anglo-Saxon, Viking and French ancestors with ceremonial rapings and pillagings and a demand to be reimbursed for the Norman Conquest.
(At least I hope that’s what you mean.)
Surely we should be drawing on the best of our cultures, not the worst.
I agree with what you say about Vinny. I’ll be posting that programme soon once I’ve fixed some technical difficulties.
My great grandfather Edward Insley arrived in Australia in 1849 on the first of the unassisted passages.
He had just completed his army career and was seeking a contract with the commissariat for the New Zealand wars. He was successful
and moved to the township of Mangawhai where he set up his base.
The main street of Mangawhai today bears his name. His contract
ended with the return home of the 58th regiment (The Black Cuffs).
He moved to Tauranga in his retirement and was called upon to facilitate the gate pa uprising. he was a great friend of the editor of the Daily Southern Cross and it was my gg grandfather who alerted the authorities re the maori plan to kill all the Europeans in NZ at the time.(papers past).
My extended family was presented with a sword in 2007 by Prince Andrew on behalf of the Queen. The sword belonged to her father George 6. It was awarded posthumously to Edwards great great grandson Haane Manahi, my second cousin.
Edward Insley was of Anglo Saxon heritage so I cant help but raise the issue of their plight re the Roman Empire and I will always defend his honour. Notwithstanding, when I hear a person that speaks and presents raw data, facts, minus rhetoric as evidence and has the heart of a humanitarian like he did I take notice and that is the category in which I view yourself and your beliefs to be coming from.
Thank you sir for your contribution. I now seek to donate to Treatygate and the Vinny Eastwood show.
Thank you John, that’s very gratifying and I appreciate your generosity.
Your background is fascinating – puts you in a good position to understand both sides of the debate.
Just received an id from you re the Vinny Eastwood change of nomenclature for the treaty of waitangi debate you appeared on. To say I was livid is an understatement. I am a private tutor here in Sydney and am currently involved with my eldest son who is studying for a Science/Medicine
dual degree at Sydney University. He won entry with a 99.7 pass and only scraped in but since then 3-4 years ago he is now, according to him second top averaging 98-99 percentile. A great achievement for any student in the world.
My sons best friends will be leaders of their societies one day as will he be a leader in medicine.
My children have inherited from my parents 1/8 ownership of Mayor Island in Tauranga and other properties in and around the area. From a tribal pov we are members of Ngaiterangi who have just received compensation approx. 90 miilion all up, but we cannot be apart of that because of the pro-maori stance entwined in their affairs. Fortunately our private properties are not involved and so have a wee bit of freedom from the stallion so to speak.
My son is also an avid supporter of what you are trying to achieve for the honest to goodness people of NZ.
His appraisal of what Vinny has done was that Vinny has succumbed to pressure and sacrificed any support you may have received by deleting my fair post and adding Racist to the original title.
It looks like he has decided to press full steam ahead and now is trying to capitalise on the alternative lifestylers by scaring them into buying healthcare products for which there are no peer review parameters.
My son is very disturbed by his actions.
Despicable in my view.
ps. My son made mention that you and your wife represent the nature of NZ via your England/Taiwan heritages.
John, I’m very concerned that you’re livid about something that Vinny has done. I’m not quite clear, but do you mean his changing of the title to remove reference to “Treaty grievance industry”?
I imagine he did this in response to Joe’s complaint that the original wording revealed a bias towards my view and against Joe’s.
If so, I actually agree with Joe (and Vinny). It did suggest a bias.
Of course, it’s Vinny’s show and he’s entitled to have a point of view – as are all TV and radio talkback hosts. The most important thing is that should be fair to both sides. And Vinny was.
Seems to me a moderator has two choices. He can either remain steadfastly neutral and not reveal his point of view.
Or he can be quite open about where he stands, but at the same time make scrupulously sure that the person with the contrary view gets every opportunity to put that view.
Vinny took the second option. While not disguising his preference for racial equality in matters of state, he gave Joe and me every opportunity to say whatever we liked. His unique open-ended time frame helped make that possible.
(To be fair, Willy Jackson did the same when I was on his show for what turned out to be two hours.)
I’m surprised Vinny deleted your comment, and don’t understand why he would do that. I wonder whether it might have been an accident. I’ll email him about it and try and get some clarity for you.
You must be very proud of your son. I appreciate having the support of someone that intelligent.
Thanks for your reply John.
The deletion of my comment was what myself and my son were livid about because of the reference to yourself and the policy you espouse which happens to fall in line with the viewpoint I have and that my experiences in New Zealand with pro maori people over the course of my life until I decided in recent years to make business trips only and not deal with any racist factions. it is true one must not be subjective in ones appraisal of who may or may not be inclined that way but to reiterate I have negative experiences
for eg verbatim ” Who do you think you are, just because you have a piece of paper from the pakeha saying you own the place doesn’t mean anything to us” “Our tribe was here first and your follas tribe come from Tuhoe” “And they were slaves” he remonstrates. “Anyway your the one from Aussie” “We gonna get the land back from all you Pakeha Maoris one day, you watch”
Then the headbutt came and I was shocked!
Finally they said “We will burn your house down if you try and build there”
I was more Maori looking than them accordingly I did not understand.
John I had the highest praise for him and his attempt at moderating a fierce topic to debate. That will not change. The best I have seen in terms.
To regularly go to that debate and share it with other scholars, community members, in my area (incidentally Russell Crowe and Charlotte Dawson(deceased) are our highest profile NZer neighbours) Woolloomooloo to keep up with goings ons over there and then to see my support for your ideology via my comment removed was disconcerting and not only for myself but for the company I was with.
I understand your compassion for the fact he may have made a mistake but due to time constraints and it was a personal comment I made the onus was mine to make. After consultation with my son we decided to unsubscribe and never tread there again. I guess my son and I set high standards and do expect the same from others we choose to do any type of business with, social or commercial
Thanks for offering to contact Vinny for us, that is very much appreciated.
I left an endorsement via comments on the health care video and one other which will suffice.
Thank you again for your support John. I do find it difficult to do business with insular NZers
We have an idea to use dna testing to confirm certain theories abounding re NZ.s history pre maori. My son and I happen to carry genes supposedly back to the arrival of Toi who was the person who named Mayor island Tuhua circa 13th century. I am personally interested in the outcome.
I have noticed you have had an interest in the Celtic history of ancient NZ.
There may be some potential for business in these areas if you are interested!
Thanks Jonathan. I sent you an email at your login address but it bounced back saying there’s no such account. Perhaps you could email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
I did see a glowing comment about Vinny’s moderation on his site, and another simply saying “Gotsit”, but presumably you’re talking about a third comment that did not appear?