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

Teacher lodges BSA complaint about Native Affairs bias

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?

No.

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.

Programme Title

Native Affairs

Date of Broadcast

19 May 2014

Time of Broadcast

8.30pm

Channel/Station

Māori Television

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

10: Violence

Reasons

 During the live ‘debate’ involving John Ansell on last night’s episode of Native Affairs, the following standards were breached:

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES

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.

FAIRNESS

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

(as above)

ACCURACY

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).

RESPONSIBLE PROGRAMMING

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.

VIOLENCE

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

(as above)

 

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

In live debate on Maori TV, 8.30pm Monday

Undeterred by my exposé of their one-eyed Titford story (or more likely because they couldn’t get anyone else), Maori TV are flying me to Auckland to participate in a live Native Affairs debate on Monday night at 8.30pm.

Topics are:

1. The Littlewood ‘Treaty’. (I put the word in speech marks, since it’s a draft, not a treaty.)
2. New Zealand’s alternate history (ie that people other than Maori were first settlers of New Zealand).
3. The level of support for One New Zealand, NZCPR, Celtic NZ, 1LAW4ALL, the Pakeha Party and Treatygate.

They asked for teams of two from each side. But sadly, as of Friday, no one else from the above groups was prepared to front. (Disappointing, to say the least.)

Therefore I’m told my only opponent will be Annette Sykes.

Well, after my last two experiences of Maori TV debates, I wouldn’t bet on it.

The first time, reporter Semi Holland told me I’d be debating Joris de Bres and getting equal time. But on the night it was Joris and Ella Henry, giving them a two-thirds/one-third time advantage.

The next time when I was invited to debate Metiria Turei, Semi promised me she would not pull the same stunt.

But true to form, when I got there, Semi revealed that Metiria and I would soon be joined by John Tamihere. I got mad and she had to bribe me with chocolate cake to keep me in the building.

(My new name for Semi Holland, by the way, is Semi Honest.)

However I’m pleased I hung around that time, because their ambush backfired when Tamihere failed to show. Interviewer Julian Wilcox gave me a fair run and I got equal time — but only by accident.

Anyway, I believe in taking every opportunity to get the truth out there, and regardless of whether or not they honour their promise of a fair debate, I intend to give Monday night’s audience their money’s worth.

Tune in if you can. And show them you’re there by providing some pushback to the no-doubt-vicious abuse on the Native Affairs Facebook page!

What Maori TV didn’t show you

As I thought. Despite being handed two affidavits revealing that Sue Titford knew that her father had burned down the family home, Native Affairs reporter Iulia Leilua totally ignored this damning but highly inconvenient evidence.

Her report (with Martin Doutre and me featuring in part 2) blithely persisted with the line that Allan Titford had committed the arson — a charge Sue was happy to repeat in Court, knowing that National MP and now Far North mayor John Carter had guaranteed her  state immunity from being charged with perjury.

Anticipating Maori TV dishonesty from my several previous encounters with the channel, Martin and I took the unusual step of bringing along our own cameraman, John de Vere, to film all the interviews.

I’m glad we did so, as now you can see for yourself by comparing the raw footage above with the broadcast story how this state-funded channel wilfully omitted a key piece of evidence at odds with the state’s agenda to vilify Allan Titford.

Iulia did not appreciate being surprised by a second camera, but I explained that I had been surprised so many times by her channel that I simply did not trust them to present a fair account of the Titford story. I wanted a full record of everything I said, so I could post it if my fears proved correct.

The reporter had little choice but to accept this condition.

I then handed her the two affidavits from Sheryl Titford and Ileen McGrath. I explained that these were evidence of Sue’s admission that her father had confessed on his deathbed to burning down her and Allan’s home.

I thought this might be of interest to Maori TV. After all, as well as exonerating Allan Titford, Sue’s admission also exonerated the Te Roroa iwi from involvement in the arson.

But apparently they were more interested in presenting Te Roroa as aggrieved, and Allan as the cause.

You can see Iulia holding the two affidavits throughout the interview, and yet her report does not once mention this extraordinary evidence.

I’ve asked her by email why not. I’ll let you know if she ever answers.

Doutre and Ansell on Native Affairs, 8.30pm tonight

From 6.00am on the morning of the autumn equinox, 21 March (my birthday as it happens), Martin Doutre and I stood on the summit of Mt Albert with a film crew from Maori TV waiting for the sun to rise.

It did so on the other side of Auckland, in a trench which Martin said had been cut by the Patuparaiehe people to line up the equinoxial sunrise with the standing stone that we were standing beside. Cloud unfortunately obscured the event, which Martin has recorded on other occasions.

We then went down to Stanley Street to film Martin with some giant boulders which had been removed from a hill in Silverdale, and which had for thousands of years before that performed a similar astronomical role.

On a bench nearby I was filmed talking about Martin, and also about the Allan Titford case — the main reason I had made the journey from Wellington.

I thought I’d make the Titford interview more newsworthy by presenting the reporter with the two affidavits revealing that Sue Titford-Cochrane’s father had confessed to burning down Allan and Sue’s Maunganui Bluff home, not Allan, as Sue testified in Court.

We’ll see how much of this makes it to air tonight at 8.30pm. Given the media’s record so far, let’s say I’m not overly confident.