Our mass media – mindless, mischievous, malicious…? Is it actually corrupt?

See below. From Bruce Moon, to  the editor of The Nelson Mail, Sunday, August 5, 2018

Dear Victoria,
A lot of propaganda and very distorted stories about land have been circulating recently in the news media, including the “Nelson Mail”.  What is invariably concealed is the primary fact that the tribes were only too eager to exchange large areas of surplus land for material goods which the Europeans provided.  To provide that “balance” which our public library and the chief executive officer of the City Council have asserted to me as being so essential, I provide herewith therefore an article of mine which is not propaganda but is accurately based on the hard facts of history to which references are given.
 
You may recall, too, that on 2nd March 2016 the “Mail” featured prominently an article by John and Hilary Mitchell which I found to be inaccurate and unbalanced in several respects.  I wrote for you therefore a piece to correct their shortcomings, but you chose to ignore it.  I am pleased to report,  however,  that not long afterwards it did appear in the “Northern Age” whose editor, Peter Jackson, shows the great merit of printing material as freely from one side as the other, thereby allowing his readers to make up their own minds on matters of importance.  It is attached below.
Very recently, too, a correspondent sent me the editorial page of the “Mail” for September 9, 2000 with the bold “Mailbox” headline “Dr Mitchell’s ancestors guilty of genocide too”.  Two letters, by B Tod of Motueka and David Curl of Nelson, describe the brutal pre-1840 practices of Maori tribes including the genocide and wholesale cannibalism inflicted on the innocent people of the Chatham Islands by Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama – from whom John claims descent.  John had apparently written in support of  Tariana Turia who had made the outrageous claim of a “holocaust” in British settlement of New Zealand – a term surely more accurately applied to his own tribe’s behaviour.  Curiously, on the very same page the “Quote of the week” reports then Finance Minister Michael Cullen stating that Ms Turia had accepted the Prime Minister’s edict that “ministers should not use That Term” [sic].  Well, well!
 
I refer also to my talk “A Jaundiced View of the Treaty” for whose title I selected John’s own reported words.  As far as I know and notwithstanding my cordial invitation, nobody from the “Mail” attended its very successful presentation on 7th July at the rooms of the Hearing Association whose acceptance of the importance of free speech evidently outweighed its fear of “a health and safety issue”.  This had, I understand, cowed the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, the Elim Church, the Masonic Temple and Fairfield House into declining to make their premises available.
 

Thus it is attached too for your information.  It was delivered to a very attentive full house – in fact a notice to that effect had to be posted two minutes before its scheduled start.  There was not a single attempt at heckling or any other disturbance; questions and comments were courteous and relevant.  Its success is at least a small contribution to the defence of truth, fairness and democracy which are so much at peril in New Zealand today.  Elsewhere, in consequence of its earlier banning, it has appeared in various social media and assuredly been read by many more people that would ever had done so had it been delivered as intended in the first place.

As one commentator put it, Nelson now appears to be the prime candidate for the distinction of being the first town in New Zealand to indulge in book-burning, though possibly Auckland may vie for that dubious distinction.

 
With my compliments,
 
Bruce M

This very brave man has long been been fighting back. Who is going to help him?

This is a serious question. New Zealand is now in many ways at the crossroads – and it depends on each of us which way it’s going to go… as so much needs to be reclaimed – ( To understand how, see www.100days.co.nz).

What can one conclude, looking at the record of our media giants these years, and the utter bias demonstrated by the now almost inevitable, one-sided presentation of very important issues?

These include the heavy-handed promotion of the politics of racial superiority.

The lack of much-needed scrutinising of the massively costly and divisive Maori supremacy movement – by no means supported by most part-Maori  – but  gaining far too much mileage in being pushed by a relatively  few radicalised extremists – has reached disgraceful levels.

And the biggest challenge to every New Zealander has to be that none of us can walk away and say it doesn’t matter.  It matters very much.

It is individuals, accumulatively, who count. We can ring up the local newspaper – and say we’ve had enough – tell the editors. They won’t like it – but we needn’t grieve over that 🙂 And if you have done your bit…and someone else does the same thing…on it goes. Even if it was only you – you count.

Or what about contacting Talkback – and/or asking your MP, your paid employee, what he/she is doing to represent you and the majority in opposing this damaging movement?

MPs don’t like Talkback. No surprises there. It so very often tells them how so many New Zealanders really feel…

And behind it all, what about the fine individuals you/ we let down, by doing nothing to support them?

We don’t have to be experts in any particular area to realise that there are things very wrong in a number of important areas.

What about saying that we’ve had enough of deliberate bias? And does it raise the question of a basic corruption within these media? 

One brave man, among others, has long been challenging this.

For a copy of Bruce’s attachments, please send a return address. Thank you.

Amy Brooke – Convenor – www.100days.co.nz

The witch-hunt against Allan Titford?

The Witch-hunt against Allan Titford?

COPYRIGHT © KAPITI INDEPENDENT NEWS

July 24, 2018  

Amy Brooke believes that 24 Years, The Trials of Allan Titford by Mike Butler exposes judicial failure in both the district court and the Court of Appeal.

Some justice at last?

At last, thanks to Mike Butler and Tross Publishing, some justice for a man who has basically been framed?

As a socio-political commentator at the time, I recall being increasingly concerned at what looked very like a loaded gun, metaphorically speaking, which had been pointed at Allan Titford.

I was horrified at the charges that had been levelled against him on the flimsiest of evidence – much of it based on accusations which simply should not have carried weight in a genuine court of justice.

Questions about the Waitangi Tribunal

Equally shockingly has been the utterly undemocratic, and indeed arguably corrupt, processes under which The Waitangi Tribunal has  been allowed to operate.

Much of this is detailed in my book –

“The 100 days – Claiming back New Zealand – what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians.”

Flawed from its inception, the tribunal has been granted far more respect than it deserves, and, biased in its findings, it has basically brought itself into disrepute.

That our political parties have given far too much credence to its findings, and that there is even provision for its findings to be binding on government is completely unacceptable.

So is what has happened to Allan Titford, with an almost unbelievable sentence of 24 years of imprisonment!  More than for committing murder…. utterly incredible!

That this whole saga is an indictment on our justice system is an understatement. It is more than time for these issues to be addressed. And it is time our government fronted up.

Mike Butler explains how corrupt our justice system has become in 24 Years, The Trials of Allan Titford.

Uncovering the truth

In 1987 Allan Titford was being driven off his farm by people who claimed that part of it was Maori land. His story captured the hearts and minds of many New Zealanders.

However, in 2013, when he was jailed for more than 24 years, he was called “a slave driver, a monster and a liar”.

This book tells how a treaty claim took private land against the will of its owners despite evidence that the claim was unjustified.

It also analyses how Allan Titford was jailed for such a long time.

The record jail term is bizarre considering that 12 charges relied on the uncorroborated testimony of a person who admitted to perjury.

Moreover, many of the 53 charges against him were hardly tested in court.

It also shows a hidden parallel story about how the justice system was played for financial gain.

This book exposes judicial failure in both the district court and the Court of Appeal.

It asks whether the process used against Allan Titford is standard practice in the New Zealand justice system and how many more victims have been locked up by using these methods.

See the video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uQamj01Paw

Ross Baker, Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc, wrote:

I have just finished reading 24 Years and as I have been very involved with Allan and Susan Titford since the “false” claim was place on Allan’s freehold titled property at Maunganui Bluff, I can confirm this is a true and accurate accounts of the events that ended with Allan being jailed for 24 years because of our corrupt justice system. A must read”.

(24 Years, The Trials of Allan Titford by Mike Butler is published by Limestone Bluff. It has 339 pages, is illustrated and is available from www.trosspublishing.co.nz or at a good bookstore near you for $39.50.)Bottom of Form

 

Does Susan Devoy favour censorship by prosecution?

Does Susan Devoy favour censorship by prosecution? Apparently so – with her suggestion of involving the police to charge those she fancies have committed “hate speech”.

While in every society  there are undoubtedly individuals whose form of expression is extreme, unfair, or thoroughly objectionable, there is very good reason why we have not in the past moved towards a more totalitarian society –  by removing the right to free speech.

What our Race Relations Conciliator does not seem able to take on board is the fact that  New Zealand can no longer claim to be a free society if she achieves her apparent wish – to have individuals charged with the crime of using speech she and others may find offensive.

This is a horrifically dangerous move for any government to embark upon – a new form of censorship which would have been completely unthinkable to our parents and grandparents. Only in times of war,  when loose tongues could cost lives, has any Western society risked the damage done to one of the most important of human freedoms – people’s very basic rights to speak the truth as they see it.

But there is no doubt now that individuals are under threat today, even vilified, or virulently attacked for speaking the truth as they see this – for pointing out the growing dangers threatening our society.  The form of Muslim extremism, for example, sweeping across Europe, tolerates no opposition, the least form of which is name-calling and disparaging its opponents – those with the courage still to try to warn about what is actually happening to this now troubled continent.

 It has always been recognised that whether individual opinions are considered right or wrong – an open society is the only one compatible with Western freedoms – and the underpinning of democracy. Open debate and free comment are the best remedies to counter extremism. And we should be questioning why, if Devoy has any real knowledge of what happened to those societies in the 20th century (and today) in which the climate of intimidation allowed dictatorships to flourish, she has not taken the lessons on board.

It’s happening again. From one of the best informed website journals, The Gatestone Institute, comes this reminder of what happens when the State begins to censor speech. It contains a reminder by Spiked Online editor, Brendan O’Neill, that “politically correct speech does not need protecting. The United States first Amendment exists precisely to protect the minority from the majority – and to protect unpopular opinions from those who would silence them.”  https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12008/france-le-pen-free-speech#.WrNlggLKBas.gmail

There seems little doubt that Susan Devoy, with her aim of having suppressed speech or opinions which she finds unpalatable, thinks these should be silenced.

 This is not only an aim incompatible with democratic freedoms – (regardless of the creeping activism we have seen for some time, in relation to even our court decisions). It flies in the face of that most important reminder from The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 19.

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

We have already in this country seen the rise of bullying and name-calling whereby radical activism uses the tactics of badmouthing thoughtful critics by targeting them as racist, or homophobic, for example. As it works by silencing all too many worried about the repercussions ensuing from standing up for their beliefs, we have started on the first step of a very slippery slope.

Ms Devoy arguably needs to think much more deeply of the consequences of her wish to involve the police to target individuals whose utterances she disapproves of. This will undoubtedly take us even further down the road of a virtual Police State that some maintain, with reason, we are already embarked upon.

©  Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through www.amybrooke.co.nz, Kindle, or HATM Publishers.