The real racism, Susan Devoy? Check out Ngai Tahu

The real racism, Susan Devoy? Check out Ngai Tahu

What, Ms Devoy, do scientist and columnist Dr Bob Brockie, MNZM; conservationist Bud Jones, QSM (recognised for years of faithful service – and with a distinguished career as a professional musician); Neil Hayes, QSM, who was awarded a QSM in recognition of his 34 years of continuous involvement in attempting to save the rare and critically endangered NZ Brown Teal (Anas chlorotis) from extinction – have in common?  Neil is a Royal Chartered Environmentalist . Add in, among other highly regarded New Zealanders, the eminent Bruce Moon, the first person to install a computer in a New Zealand University. The answer? They all have been warning what you should be well aware of, in your position, but apparently aren’t.  Or are you just keeping your head down? Whatever; this just isn’t good enough, and your dogmatic utterances are helping to foster divisiveness and dissent.

In a recent Dominion Post column, Bob Brockie brought to public scrutiny the shockingly racist bias and tribal centre-staging which has wormed its way into what should be completely independent centres of learning in this country. What has long been imposed by neo-Marxist activists within the Ministry of Education, blatantly targeting schoolchildren with their damaging propaganda, has now taken an even stronger foothold within our higher institutes of learning.

Dr Brockie illustrated the fact that what was once Britain’s top scientific organisation, the Royal Society – morphing here into the Royal Society of New Zealand – (which is supposed to foster scientific research and provide independent advice on scientific matters, free of political commercial or cultural bias) – is now doing nothing of the sort. Transferring itself into “an academy” in 2010 it appointed representatives of the humanities to its councils – at which stage the alarm bells should have started to ring…because of course these artistic and literary ” councillors” (from  both the government-funded arts and literary circles)  have long been thoroughly partisan and biased – and very much controlled by the politically correct.

Granting themselves an obscure title in the newly invented, inauthentic and ponderous Maori-speak, these advisers called themselves  Te Whainga Aronui o Te Aparangi,  and brought with them the inevitable baggage load of cultural and political activism from the humanities – the centre of subversive activity within our universities in recent decades.  As Dr Brockie points out,  inheriting the essential madness of the French nihilist philosophers, Derrida, Foucault and their disciples,  these  have long argued that there are no such things as facts – that everybody’s opinions are of equal value – “whether those of a quantum physicist or a Stone Age nobody” . I recall, for example, Oxford’s then Marxist English Professor Terry Eagleton maintaining that the novels of Barbara Cartland equalled in value the works produced by the actor, Shakespeare (or, more likely, the 17th Earl of Oxford – cf. Joseph Sobran’s brilliant and scholarly “Alias Shakespeare” – offering a much-needed intellectual challenge to the sheer laziness of a great part of the regurgitated research offered by university humanities departments in recent decades).

It was primarily our universities, particularly the English and Education departments, abandoning their traditional description as faculties, who so thoroughly embraced the sheer fatuity of political correctness, maintaining that people’s beliefs and opinions are of equal value –   (unless of course, they are Christian, in which case they must be disparaged and ridiculed) – and that “decontextualisation” – the meaning of which defies comprehension  – should rule, in literature, rather than what a great writer actually wrote.

At any rate, the real scandal is that this year, the Te Whainga group, whoever they are and whatever this means, are now claiming that the Royal Society, via its current president, Richard Bedford, ”needs to place the Treaty of Waitangi centrally, and bring alongside that inequity and adversity issues in a holistic manner.” As Bob Brockie points out – this is outrageous. The Treaty,  whose real meaning has been so usefully distorted, reinvented and “reinterpreted” by today’s radical propagandists, assisted by lawyers with their eye to the lucrative work involved, “has no place in scientific endeavour. To make it the centrepiece of the Royal Society’s agenda beggars belief.” 

Dr Brockie is right. Moreover, he points to something equally shocking – that Otago University recently proclaimed that the aggressive neo-tribe, Ngai Tahu must be consulted “about all areas of research” before scholars begin their work. “All proposals must be submitted to the office of Maori development”. Staff and students were warned that consultation may take time, so they were advised “to start well in advance of preparing your proposal.” He points out that Otago researchers are looking into everything ” from zeta functions, quantum physics, logistics, dental technology and Roman Law to compositions by Brahms – and rightly asks what expertise Ngai Tahu have in evaluating these research proposals. He also points out that “Ngai Tahu run several commercial companies (with a surplus of many millions annually) and could turn down research that questions or challenges its business motives or motivations.”

Moreover, most of this research is simply not Ngai Tahu’s business. Not only do they have no expertise in judging the value of such research – it is quite appalling that Otago University has acquiesced, as Dr Brockie points out, to such proscriptive, inquisitorial demands”. Shame on my former university.

The time has long gone when universities were once respected as valuable, independent, scholarly institutions operating without fear of bias, even emphasising to their students that their prime value did not lie in facilitating a meal ticket to a future occupation – but in providing the opportunity to research, to explore, to weigh, to learn – in order to advance important discovery, and to aim for the truth of issues. But as Brockie points out “young researchers do not question these moves for fear of being labelled racist and putting their careers at stake.” He is quite right.  What has happened to this country when so many admit they dare not question the highly politicised requirements now dumped on them for fear of losing their jobs?

It’s not only Otago of course, that’s bowing to the pressure of big-money today wielded by the tribes, acquired by compulsion from the taxpayers of this country. The rot is white-anting all our universities. It must be two years ago that a professor friend at Canterbury told me he was warned by an HOD from another department that he had better conjure up some way of touching the forelock towards Ngai Tahu’s imagined” cultural sensitivity” in the courses his department offered – courses having nothing whatsoever to do with racial issues –  because in future any undergraduate hoping to get a degree from Canterbury was going to have to demonstrate that he/she was “culturally sensitive” – whatever this jargon means.

We know of course that this is not intended to be exercised in relation to the values of the majority of our European forebears in this country – but to kowtow towards the radical activism of powerful tribes like the moneyed Ngai Tahu. It is highly doubtful that this virtually bullying activism is even supported by the majority of those of Ngai Tahu descent, apparently largely unaware of what is going on.  On the contrary, it is being pushed by those with their own damaging and egotistical agenda.

What of the findings of these perplexed and imminent New Zealanders, Bud Jones and Neil Hayes, both prominent in their respective fields to the extent of being awarded Queen’s Service Medals? Victoria University, which years ago thoroughly blotted its copybook by refusing to allow the issue of supposed man-made global warming (now conveniently relabelled climate change) to even be debated on its campus is now requiring adherence to this pernicious Vision Matauranga radicalism – i.e. prioritising Maori preferment in utterly irrelevant scientific and academic areas – and requiring staff to explain themselves if they are not doing so! Comparisons with the former totalitarian USSR don’t need to be pointed out.

Described as “racism in the extreme,” as part of this university’s  “2018 learning, teaching, and equity priorities to Te Makuako Aronui” (whatever this, too, means) increased incorporation of Matauranga Maori in courses is required. A senior member of the music department was asked to appear before a panel and explain how he would be incorporating Matauranga Maori into his teaching course subjects –  (“We are talking music department here!…I was pressed into an advisory role… Naturally I reeled at the audacity of an entirely secular university institution making a reprehensible demand on an employee to be a parrot for someone else’s spiritual/religious and racist agenda.  However, on further enquiries it is revealed that many, if not all university departments have the same request in place. i.e.  to incorporate Matauranga Maori into their courses.  The request comes in an ultimate form of  “if not why not” directive.

“I’ve enquired with other former teachers and others: the consensus is: anything implying spiritualism/ religiosity or racism has no place in the university, and probably the University Charter says it explicitly. You cannot comply with this call for racism being incorporated into the school on personal, ethical, and academic grounds. Besides, it is outside your job description to be advocating any spiritual, religious or racial bias into your academic teaching subject. You cannot, nor can you, be a parrot for someone else’s agenda. It is morally reprehensible that the secular academic institution should call on you to do so as well. You {should} decline on academic grounds of integrity!”

What of the recent experience of Bruce Moon?  A retired Canterbury University professorial board member, Bruce has been deeply engaged in studying New Zealand history in his retirement. In his working life Bruce has been a rocket scientist in the UK and Australia. A fellow of the UK Institute of Physics,  a director of the Canterbury University Computer Centre, a national President of the NZ computer Society, an Honorary Fellow of the New Zealand Institute Information Technology Professionals, an officer in the Naval Reserve, Bruce is the author of “Real Treaty; False Treaty – The True Waitangi Story”.

Needless to say, the Nelson Mail, with its tendency to suppress letters with which the letters editor apparently does not agree, has consistently refused to publish Bruce’s letters  – and even articles – correcting quite wrong “facts” advanced by some of Nelson’s notable activists.  It was not until recently when I at last scratched together the time to make an official complaint to the Press Council about the Nelson Mail’s suppression of, or tampering with,  my own letters, citing Bruce’s experience also, that a recent letter of his has actually been published. The quite blatant bias now exhibited by extraordinarily uninformed or even stroppy agendists throughout our mainstream media echoes a lot of what is also happening overseas.

In relation to what has now become a quite blatant activism within the universities, and spreading throughout all other institutions, I’m reminded of the question I put to the eminent historian Paul Johnson nearly two decades in ago when I was fortunate enough to accompany him while he was visiting this country.  I asked him at the time where the attack upon the universities basically came from – specifically that of the post-modernists and the neo-Marxists (basically the same – i.e.  those working towards the imposing of Communism against the West by cultural domination, and spearheaded by the assault against reason by the same nihilist philosophers – or pseudo-philosophers.  Paul answered that this attack was not mounted against the universities – it originated from within the universities. He was of course right. And I recall an excellent lunchtime lecture he gave in Wellington – and the very hostile reception he got from his largely media and university staff audience.

This former editor of the left-wing The New Statesman abandoned the Left in favour of the free market, but his intellectual honesty is such that he would undoubtedly reject today’s corporate capture of the market – and its distortion  – when the excesses of capitalism without conscience are given rein to run riot.
Today, among those super-wealthy capitalist organisations now doing just this are some of our wealthiest tribes, virtually blackmailing universities and private institutions to prioritise their tribal interests ahead of the common good.

You’re paid by the taxpayers of this country, Susan Devoy. So we would like to know why New Zealand’s Relations Conciliator is apparently turning a blind eye to what is actually happening? Are you really so ignorant, or uninformed that you have no idea what is taking place ?  – of facts which now manage to get at least some, if woefully inadequate coverage in a mainstream media which for too long now has basically ill-served the country. And throwing around unjustified charges of racism, when fine individuals who’ve earned the right to be listened to, and respected,  point out what is really racist – and  are ignored, simply isn’t good enough.

What is basically racist – the form of virtual blackmail by now very wealthy iwi, including, in fact particularly Ngai Tahu – has reached disgraceful proportions. Ironically, on very good evidence, including historian Alan Everton’s excellent research, this largely European-derived tribe should never have got its lucrative 1998 settlement (one of the last of a number of now never-ending power and money grabs by this greedy tribe that lawyer Chris Finlayson wangled for them).  It was a settlement repudiated by highly respected members of the tribe, such as Dame Whetu Tirikatane-Sullivan, pointing out that a previous full and final settlement had been unanimously agreed to. However, the dominating, reportedly only even one-sixteenth Maori, Tipene O’Regan, apparently persuaded Finlayson to represent their new, contrived claim – already previously rejected by a Maori Affairs Select Committee.  Finlayson was viewed as largely instrumental in pushing this claim through.  However, was this instance of what many public perceive as the only too common practice of lawyers competing against each other – rather than prioritizing the justice of a claim?

Finlayson is on record as saying, in a speech in 2009:  “I used to love going to the office in the morning when we were suing the Crown…Ngai Tahu mastered the  art of aggressive litigation. . .  It was ‘Take no prisoners’ and it resulted in a good settlement “. For Ngai Tahu, yes, but what about the truth of their claim?

It would not be appropriate for this lawyer to gloat too much. Later, the Crown lawyers virtually admitted they were a pushover. They had no historians on board – from memory, they admitted their lawyers had background degrees in Geography and French. They not only accepted Ngai Tahu’s word in relation to quite wrong “facts” – they were not allowed to even follow the normal practice of cross-examination. Tipene O’Regan even managed to successfully make the ridiculous claim that confrontation was not the Maori way…

This Ngai Tahu settlement was later described as a swindle – a view many share. The select committee whose job it should have been to scrutinise it was told by the Minister in charge of Treaty Negotiations at the time, Doug Graham, that their job was to simply basically endorse it, as the original bill had been signed by him and the then Prime Minister, Jim Bolger. In other words, it was never subjected to the proper, rigorous scrutiny which should have occurred.

 And unfortunately, also, in the eyes of well informed historians and researchers, the Ngai Tahu lawyer Chris Finlayson  was subsequently appointed Minister for Treaty Negotiations, and  has been viewed to be far too uncritical of highly fanciful claims submitted for his office to apparently virtually rubber-stamp.  He has apparently been very close to the wily elder Apirana Mahuika, who claimed, when a generous full and final settlement was signed, that it would not be the end of it – that his present generation had no right to hold the next generation to a proceeding agreement. When, as a then Dominion columnist,  I pointed out at the time that in this case he and his fellow claimants, according to this logic, had no right to expect today’s generation to endorse the Treaty of Waitangi, he went off the air…

How sad it is that today’s destructive tribalism is not only opposing the common good: it is sowing dissent throughout this country. Our governments have been very much culpable – both National and Labour have let the country down. And Labour is now marching further ahead downs the same well-trodden path.

That this neo-tribalism is destroying much of what has been best about New Zealand  – where racial discrimination  held so little place that intermarriage was taken for granted  – to the extent that there are no longer any full-blooded Maori in our relatively short cohabitation – is no longer in doubt. But we never hear a word from you, Susan Devoy, Race Relations Conciliator, about the real reasons for what is going wrong. Your apparent focus on attempting to punish those you consider hold “racist” views is yet another nail in the coffin of the once far healthier democracy we were.

A number of factors are contributing to the growth of separatism and resentment. But basically, rapacious, so-called neo-tribes, with their unhealthy but highly lucrative concentration on grievances dating back two centuries, are responsible – together with the lawyers so obligingly assisting them, helping themselves to a large chunk of the never-ending settlements which were supposed to have reached final closure years ago. Moreover, greed and avarice being what they are, the possibility of squeezing even more millions from New Zealand taxpayers to add to the $50 billion which the Maori economy is now worth, is being milked on what has become a never-ending basis. That ridiculous claims to areas which Maori never owned, including our waterways, plants, and the radio spectrum are not immediately laughed out of court are an indictment on our venal political parties  – and a now perceivedly activist judicial system.

 The facts of the matter – that there given there are no longer any full-blooded Maori in this country, and  that most with some Maori ancestry do not profit one whit from what the chief executives of these neo-tribes – in fact basically corporate bodies – are contriving for themselves is completely ignored by our constantly vote-buying political parties.  What is also ignored is that none of these settlements benefit any in the past who were genuinely wronged – and that the blame for any such injustices (which certainly by no means affected only Maori) cannot possibly be laid at the feet of any New Zealanders today.

So what has been happening? The answer lies in Malcolm X’s advice to radical activists that  “The squeaky wheel gets the most grease…”  advice the controversial  Titewhai Harawira gave to her followers.  Mrs  Harawira, like so many activist part- Maori,  who have apparently been intent on passing on a sense of grievance to the next generation – without ever acknowledging the very tangible benefits that colonisation brought to Maori –   has apparently never come to terms with the simple fact that, as Bruce Moon reminds us, the Treaty of Waitangi – Te Tiriti o Waitangi  was basically a simple document which said in essence  that the chiefs ceded sovereignty completely and forever to the Queen,  and that all Maoris (including the many slaves) received the rights of the people of England. The extraordinary and quite wrong statement by the President of the Royal Society, Richard Bedford, to the effect that researchers have special responsibilities under the treaty is quite wrong, as is his reference, to Aotearoa New Zealand – a name which does not occur in any reference to New Zealand in Te Tiriti – but which is now being heavily promoted by radical activists as a substitute for this country’s correct name.

A clue to what underpins this ongoing push for separatism and indeed for special privileges – is found in a recent interview given by the radicalised Mrs Titewhai Harawira, mother of the stroppy former MP Hone Harawira.  “They talk about how Māori have special privileges. But we don’t have any special privileges. We are tangata whenua and we have a treaty that says we have a right to these taonga. And the Pākehā have a right to look after their own people. Not to rule over us.”

She’s wrong, of course. Sovereignty was ceded to the Crown. And it’s interesting how the original meaning of the words such as taonga has been exaggerated beyond recognition. Taonga applied only to material possessions – including land, to which stable possession and legal title was never held by Maori – until the coming of British Law establishing this. Similarly, the much invoked claim to be tangata whenua is quite wrong. Mrs Harawira’s ancestors made known to our early historians that the term referred to the people they knew had been here before them – a term translated variously as the first people – or the people of the land.

An interesting observation by Andy Oakley, author of the well researched ….”Once We Were One – The Fraud of Modern Separatism” (Tross Publishing) is that “I am finding more and more in my debates with Maori separatists that they accept there is noting in Te Tiriti that gives them any special rights, and the elevation of one race over all others may not be fair. However, what they now tend to say is:  it does not matter how I (me) or Pakeha feel about the situation: the courts have made their decisions and central and local governments are enacting these decisions by giving Maori separate and  superior rights… Get used to it.”

The country is not going to get used to it. The inevitable backlash is already under way.  So is the growing questioning about the qualifications – or lack of them – that our Race Relations Conciliator brings to bear on her highly controversial role. People are asking why she was ever appointed.

Postscript. The talk scheduled to be given at the Nelson library by historian Bruce Moon, at the invitation of the Nelson Institute,  has been called off. Apparently, representatives of the Nelson City Council, library officials, and two members of the Nelson Institute met, as all three groups have been contacted by persons saying he should not be allowed to talk on this topic.

Allowed? The you-can’t-say-that bullying and intimidation now being exercised on campuses overseas, by those too apparently mentally and emotionally fragile to be able to tolerate genuine debate, is well under way in this country. More than one other historian is reporting similar incidents.

Moon’s talk, “Twisting the treaty and other fake history” was specifically designed to be non-political – the findings of a scientist turned historian – rather than, one would expect (from his extremely well-informed writing in these areas) that of those government-endorsed, PC historians who have lent too willing and too uncritical an ear to the self-serving propaganda too often advanced by some of today’s manipulative tribal corporations.

This disgraceful and successful attempt to shut down well-informed commentators has been well under way overseas…It has now come here. Copy-cat objections to the scheduled talk were represented under the guise of concern about it disturbing the peace and becoming a Health and Safety issue. Reportedly, the individuals who thought up this underhand way of preventing actual facts being presented concerning the distortion of the meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi are well known to the Council and library staff.

They need to be publicly identified, rather than sheltering under the convenient umbrella of anonymity. Nelson Institute, the Council and library  have all shamefully buckled under. If a legitimate case could indeed be made for it being a Health and Safety issue then the implying of possible violence means that this whole matter should now be reported to the police. But who’s holding their breath?

The only effective opposition to this virtual bullying by those anxious to hijack our democratic institutions can be mounted by individuals.

We have forgotten the power on one….Each one of your and my individual objections to this new totalitarianism is the strongest blow against this push for tribal preferment, and power. It is intent on contriving a virtual apartheid , and the supremacy of unrepresentative, minority power seekers working to undermine this country. Our real concern must be those who, as Edmund Burke pointed out, do absolutely nothing to help save the day…

Do you?  If so, we all owe a debt to you. Thank you!

If not? Join us – and tell others – till the knowledge of what is actually happening reaches right around the country.  

*

©  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 my  BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazons Kindle.

 

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.

 

Is Air New Zealand’s cost-cutting compromising its safety record?

One thing passengers don’t want to hear is that their flight has been delayed because of engineering problems.

It seems to be happening more frequently. Why? And is Air New Zealand massaging its safety record? Incidents which cause alarm to passengers are not being reported in the media.

Why so many engineering problems? Could the reason be partly due to the fact that, according to one long-time New Zealand engineer, the shifts were changed? Whereas three engineers worked eight-hour shifts each, now two engineers are rostered to work 12 hour shifts instead. As an engineer involved comments, the last three hours are when the mistakes happen. Understandably, given the extraordinary concentration needed by maintenance staff to keep these planes safe in the air.

It is almost incredible that Air New Zealand’s aeronautical engineers are being required to work 12 hour shifts when public safety is an issue – let alone the health and stress consequences for individuals.  An article in The CAA September/October 2002 journal points out there is probably no way to avoid the need for maintenance to be done at night. While arguing that this does not mean that fatigue levels can’t be managed, it concedes that almost all night-shift workers suffer from a lack of quality sleep.

Moreover “Australian research has shown that moderate sleep deprivation of the kind experienced by shift workers can produce effects very similar to those produced by alcohol.” Noting that “a relatively limited number of unsafe acts such as work-arounds, memory lapses and situational awareness errors typically occur in the context of problems such as unclear or poor procedures, lack of equipment or spares, communication breakdowns, time pressure and fatigue, the article concludes: “Unfortunately, advances in aviation technology have not necessarily matched by improvements in the way we organise the work of the people who maintain aircraft.”

Plus ça change? How much credibility should we give to the claim a twelve hour shift roster was given the support of 84% of hangar staff after a 12 month trial? What about the high degree of probability that qualified staff, anxious not to lose their jobs, would feel the necessity to agree to a situation which is overly-taxing, and clearly not optimum?

Feedback from readers in this area would be interesting. Some are reporting that on one particular busy route, a trouble-free flight is now an exception. Even allowing for possible exaggeration, these incidents are certainly regularly occurring.   And being required to remain penned on a plane sitting on the hot tarmac of Auckland airport for an extra hour and more in these high summer temperatures (a recent reported occurrence) is not only a worry for passengers who have no idea what the problem is – but adds to the stress of all who are suffering the effects of the heat while the plane is stationary.

When asked some time back why Air New Zealand causes alarm to passengers by telling them that their plane has an engineering problem, the answer came that the airline was required to do so, in the interests of freedom of information. However, when then asked why the passengers weren’t told exactly what the problem was  – the answer was that Air New Zealand isn’t required to do so.

Why not – in the interests of keeping passengers fully informed? And why aren’t passengers given the choice of leaving a plane which they have been told has engineering problems – to choose another plane? Not to allow passengers the choice of disembarking, if there are problems with the plane, seems entirely unreasonable.

Moreover, a number of incidents which should cause concern are not being reported in the media… such as a plane required to turn back to Auckland some little while ago – at the slowest possible speed manageable without stalling…

We need better answers from Air New Zealand – whose prices have also headed back up to about what they were before Jetstar came on the scene. As frequently noted,  it is usually more affordable for New Zealanders to fly to Australia than within our own country.  Grab-A-Seat offers have limited value only.  And we can rely on Air New Zealand’s prices shooting up around the times of special public holidays like the Christmas period, when families hope to visit one anther again. For many it is simply unaffordable.

Our pilots may be among the best in the world, our engineers, too. But isn’t it time we required more accountability from the usual suspects… from management, whose  first concern – as with so many of today’s corporations  – seems to be to increase returns to shareholders  – and to  CEOs?

 

© Amy Brooke  © 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.

It helps a lot to SHARE or LIKE us through the social media network! https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

Help us fight for the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement!

We need you to help get our message further out by donating. See www.100days.co.nz-  Thank you!

 

 

 

© 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.

It helps a lot to SHARE or LIKE us through the social media network! https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

Help us fight for the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement!

We need you to help get our message further out by donating. See www.100days.co.nz-  Thank you!

The fraudulent treaty merry-go-round. The politicians’ disgraceful copouts.

Ignorant and aggressive comments have come through to our 100 Days movement from correspondents who think they are well-informed on treaty and related issues – but in fact have simply been thoroughly brainwashed. 

From genuinely knowledgeable researchers, including the indefatigable Bruce Moon, have come relevant analyses of much of the quite blatant lies that have been told about our coexistence in this country. 

Sir William Gallagher, too, is right. (See below.) And shame on so many who know very well what has been happening, but have kept their heads down and lacked the moral courage to speak out. All credit to individuals who have, and who get too often vilified by those with their snouts in the over-flowing trough of racist government hand-outs…

 http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/99247542/sir-william-gallagher-claims-treaty-of-waitangi-coverup

Unfortunately, the mainstream media, largely lazy and under-informed, do little except regurgitate most of the fanciful, distortionary and quite untrue pronouncements from radical activists who profit hugely from the treaty industry. The fact that they are helped by very well-funded lawyers with their eye more to the size of their fees than the truth of these issues is highly relevant. So is the intellectual laziness of our politicians, particularly the thoroughly wet “liberal” former lawyers more concerned with the euphoric welcome they get on the highly politicised maraes – than with genuinely serving the interests of this country.

Unfortunately it is not been to the benefit of genuinely struggling Maori, deliberately sidelined from the lucrative treaty settlements. However, some at least, having had inculcated into them a sense of misplaced and ongoing grievance by the treaty industry vanguard, have become useful recruits to the growing push towards racial separatism in this country. We have reached the stage where a South African immigrant recently wrote to me that having encountered separatism and its evils in his home country, he has been taken aback and dismayed to find this happening here.

I recall my father telling of his teaching days on the East Coast of the North Island at the time, where he spearheaded a  movement to send abroad cans of pork and puha, a much loved delicacy, to the Maori troops at the time. The cordial relations between Maori and non-Maori ensured the success of this fine initiative.  It is now is a sad fact that the deliberate fomenting of interracial tensions in this country has been done very largely for financial gain, very much encouraged by well-placed and largely well-paid radical activists, often with a very minor degree of Maori genetic inheritance, who quickly learned to trade off this for financial advantage – and media centre-staging. Ego problems have been only too obvious…

A treasured CD I have, a copy of which I sent at the time of its launch to a Maori friend, contains wonderful recordings of  the Maori Battalion (28) singing songs during World War II. As the New Zealand Herald commented in 2006, “These unique recordings were taken ‘live’ on location in the sands of Egypt, during gunfire in North Africa, and between green hills in Southern Italy by the Middle East Recording Unit of New Zealand’s National Broadcasting Service. Often with little or no rehearsal and sometimes under appalling conditions, the recordings captured the raw exuberance and vigour of the performances.”

This stunning record of what was known as The Singing Battalion is the pride of so many New Zealanders, both of part-Maori and Euro-New Zealanders descended from the colonists – and respecting the men and women of all cultures who did so much to reach out across what could have been racial divides of their times. So successful were that intermarriage was taken for granted to the extent that there are no longer any full-blooded Maori in this country.

However, from another correspondent comes the following:

WELL THIS ONE CERTAINLY FLEW IN UNDER THE RADAR

“I see that the coalition agreement negotiated by Winston First with Labour contains a commitment to establish a Museum at Waitangi honouring the men of WW2’s  28 (Maori) Battalion.

”That’s nice … but what about similar for 18 Battalion and Armoured Regiment; 19 Battalion and Armoured Regiment; 21 Battalion, 22 Battalion; 23 Battalion; 24 Battalion; 25 Battalion, 26 Battalion;  Div Arty et al.    Those soldiers too served with honour and distinction.   What’s so special about 28 (Maori) Battalion?

”But hold on … the long established and internationally recognised National Army Museum at Waiouru (Te Mata Toa) honours all those who fought regardless of race.   Why this then? … especially from a Party that campaigned on doing away with the Maori seats because they were race based and divisive (and folded on their commitment at the first opportunity).

”Humbug and double humbug.   NZF couldn’t lie straight in bed.    A good spend of taxpayer money – NOT.”

And from yet another commentator. “And regardless of the above, such a museum properly belongs in the excellent Army museum at Waiouru – where of course the Maori Battalion and all its brothers are proudly celebrated already.”

The ongoing pick-pocketing of New Zealanders’ hard earned incomes to continue prioritising costly payouts –  at the importuning of radical activists – is a political disgrace.  With the Maori economy now worth $50 billion – yes billion – any initiative set up to benefit part-Maori only should be paid by those who Maori activists who  can well afford to carry the costs themselves. To continue raiding the pockets of New Zealanders at large is simply inexcusable. This hasn’t stopped National, Labour, and now disgracefully, New Zealand First, from going further down the same path.

Noticeable on our 100 Days page have been the ignorant comments of those who have swallowed a highly sanitised version of our co-history. The contribution below from the highly respected historian, Nelson-based Bruce Moon, highlights the difference between the downright lies that are being peddled – and the truth of events in which the media shows little interest. 

Our hope is that at least some of those wedded to the reinventing of our joint history will take a reality check when reading the below – and the correcting of blatant untruths…Don’t miss the added notes! 

 As below – the downright fabrications.

“The distortion of the history of New Zealand by racists for political and financial advantage continues at a relentless pace.  This has never been more so than in the events preceding a “so-called “Land Wars Day” on 28th October 2017.  

“On 21st February 1864, in a brilliant and humane action at dawn, designed to minimise loss of life on both sides, troops under General Sir Duncan Cameron occupied Rangiaowhia, breadbasket of the Waikato rebels on which their dominant pa at Paterangi depended.  With this setback, it was not long before the rebellion was quelled. 

“Furious at being so outwitted, the rebels soon concocted the odious lie that a church full of women and children had been burned to the ground and other atrocities committed.  Nurtured as “oral history” by the Ngati Apakura tribe, this travesty of the truth remains active to this day, being related at length by one Vincent O’Malley in the “NZ Listener” for 25th February 2017.  By contrast, with access to accounts of actual observers, one a Maori lad at the time, there is my own description of the real events in the March 2017 issue of New Zealand Voice”. 

“Others, notably Dame Susan Devoy[i] and historian Jock Phillips[ii] have likewise repeated the lie of the church-burning.

“A party of students from Otorohanga College having visited the site and been fed the false tales of the locals, a petition for a “Land Wars Day” was organised by teacher Mariana Papa and presented to Parliament by students Leah Bell and Waimarama Anderson.  Parliament failed to investigate the validity of this petition which was accepted without question and so 28th October 2017 became “Land Wars Day”.

“On this occasion appeared a report, authored by Martin Johnston, senior reporter of the NZ Herald,[iii] who had evidently interviewed student Bell, now at university, teacher Papa and historian O’Malley.  While it makes no direct accusation of any church-burning it is riddled with gross falsehoods about many aspects of New Zealand’s history including the Rangiaowhia affray. 

“It is despicable that school students should have been made the vehicle for the spreading of such false tales but it is doubly despicable because the truth was known in Otorohanga College nearly two years ago.  Principal Timoti Harris had received from me an accurate account of events at Rangiaowhia[iv], enclosed with my letter to him of 3rd December 2015.  I wrote again on 11th December 2015 and having no reply, again on 3rd January and 27th March 2016.  His belated reply subsequently was received after he had retired as school principal.

“I wrote also to the Te Awamutu RSA who responded with total silence and the Library whose reply was short but informative. Tony Membery, Principal of Te Awamutu College, briefly acknowledged my second letter to him, concluding: “I believe this will put an end to our correspondence on this matter.”  Other enquiries elicited that at Tony Membery’s school, discussion of Rangiaowhia was avoided, though a tale was current there that what was an old rebel’s white blanket had metamorphosed into a white flag of surrender!

“And so the tales continue to fester as so clearly shown by journalist Johnston’s report. Thus: 

No. 1: ”College students’ shock at the burning to death of residents of a Waikato village is at the heart of the annual day to remember the New Zealand Wars.”

IA: The burning to death of seven rebels was their own fault.  They fired first.

1B: There were no “New Zealand Wars”.  There were tribal rebellions.

No. 2: “the invasion of Rangiaowhia”

2: Rangiaowhia was British sovereign territory.  Any action to recover it from rebels was entirely legitimate and it is a travesty to call it an “invasion”.

No. 3: “the largely undefended village of Rangiaowhia”.

3: As events proved, there was a substantial number of armed rebels in the village and caches of arms were discovered in whares after the occupation.

No. 4: “[It] was attacked by British forces on February 21, 1864”.

4: Shots were only returned to rebel fire.  Rebels attacked first.

No. 5: “Buildings were burned with people inside them.”

5A: Only one building was burned with people inside.  This was the whare, fashioned as a gunpit, from which old fool Hoani Papita/John the Baptist, shot and killed Sergeant McHale at point blank range when called on to surrender.  In the subsequent exchange, the hut made of dry vegetation probably caught alight from the discharge of rebels’ or troops’ firearms.  Nobody could be sure.

No. 6: ”The Great War for New Zealand, Waikato 1800-2000”

6A: This reported title of O’Malley’s book is grossly misleading.  There were inter-tribal wars before Europeans arrived.  These intensified after 1807 when the tribes acquired guns, with Maori victims killed and eaten on a colossal scale.  This was New Zealand’s “Great War”.

6B: “1800-2000” is a gross exaggeration.  Tribal rebellions started with the Kawiti/Heke rebellion in Northland, 1843-5; mostly a sequence of skirmishes until their attack on Kororareka/Russell which was suppressed largely by Maori forces loyal to the Crown.  Other rebellions spanned the period 1859-1880.  What does O’Malley date of 2000 imply? (Note: The Taranaki Museum made a similar allusion in its falsehood-filled exhibition in 2011-3.)

No. 7: “Rangiaowhia was a refuge for women, children and the elderly.”

7: The amount of firing by rebels when Cameron’s force was discovered refutes the lie that in any sense it was a “refuge”. In fact,  before any action commenced, Captain Wilson of the cavalry gave women and children an opportunity to evacuate which they took.  None were killed or wounded except two daughters of missionary murderer Kereopa, who remained in the burning whare.  The village was actively engaged in growing food supplies for the rebels and as such a legitimate objective for government forces.

No. 8: O’Malley: “I argue in my book that the evidence that people were deliberately torched to death is clear and unambiguous.”

8: There is not a skerrick of genuine evidence for this false claim which should demolish for ever O’Malley’s reputation as a credible historian.

No. 9: Bell: “the British forces broke the rules of engagement. … the grief was still very real”

9: Given the lies fed to poor Leah, this is so but in truth the troops acted with much restraint, particularly towards women and children, in an action which, but for the recklessness of one old fool rebel chief, would have been almost bloodless.  The grief might be real but responsibility for it lies squarely with those outwitted and furious rebels 150 years ago.  That is their legacy to their people.

No.10: “The wars were fought in Marlborough, … .”

10: No “wars” but rebellions; only one incident in Marlborough, the Wairau massacre of 1843 when a posse of Nelson settlers greatly underestimated the fighting strength of Ngati Toa with whom they were in dispute, with many butchered in consequence.

No. 11: “It has been estimated that more than 3000 people died, but O’Malley believes the toll, although hard to calculate accurately, was probably higher.”

11: Cowan’s careful figures for deaths are: troops, loyal Maoris and civilians:745; rebels:2154; total 2899.[v]  Some commentators consider that he over-estimated rebel deaths.  There are other compilations but none aggregating a total of more than 3000.  Enough said?

No. 12: O’Malley: “World War I, considered the country’s ‘greatest bloodbath’.”

12: Why would he ignore the elephant in the room: the intertribal “Musket Wars of 1807-37 when by a careful estimate, 35,400 Maoris were killed by other Maoris with almost unimaginable brutality in 602 battles – about one third of the total population?[vi]

No.13: O’Malley again; “generations of Maori were condemned to landlessness and poverty.”

13:  In the years before 1840, registered in the Sydney land office were 179 sales of land in the South Island alone by willing Maori sellers[vii], many of whom had travelled personally to Sydney to secure their sales, with reserves set aside for tribal occupants according to rank from 73 acres for chiefs, rather less for free men but zero for slaves, the latter indeed in the days of “tikanga” or Maori practice “condemned to landlessness and poverty”. 

Moreover, in accordance with Hobson’s proclamation immediately on his arrival, all such sales were reduced to a maximum of 2560 acres and many voided entirely. 

Of those who retained land, in 1848 some Kaiapoi Ngai Tahu were running just two sheep and their lambs on 1000 acres yet one year later a chief wrote to complain that his reserve was not big enough.  In 1896 the tribe was cultivating a mere 857.5 of their 45,000-odd acres with one stock unit per seven acres.  In 1872, missionary Stack had reported that “Though very fond of milk and butter, there is not one [Maori] household that provides itself with these things, everyone shirks the trouble.”[viii]

 Moreover, for released landless slaves, work was available in road-building, other public works and as farm labourers.  Except in times of depression which affected all, settler and Maori alike, none who were willing to work needed to be in poverty.  It was not O’Malley’s “landlessness” of some Maoris “condemned to … poverty” but their own work-shy behaviour. 

Given the foregoing litany attributable to O’Malley, should his speculations be taken seriously?   

More appropriate are the words of late military chaplain Frank Glen: “Cameron, with commendable humanitarianism, wanted to avoid a set piece military confrontation because the likely casualties … would be severe on both sides. …  Under the cover of darkness… with the minimal loss of life, he captured Rangiaohai [sic].”[ix]

Bruce Moon – Nelson 

13th November 2017

[1]    S. Devoy, “Bay of Plenty Times”, Guest Editorial, 4th February 2017

[1]    J.O.C. Phillips, “Mediaworks,” 2nd April 2016

[1]    M. Johnson, Senior Journalist, “NZ Herald”, 28th October 2017

[1]    B. Moon, for an augmented account, see “NZ Voice”, March 2017, pp.40ff.

[1]    J. Cowan, “The New Zealand Wars”, 1922-3

[1]    J. Robinson, “When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience, ISBN 1-872970-31-1, 2012, p.64

[1]    J. Jackson, detailed list of transactions provided, 26th June 2017

[1]    A. Everton, “Nga Tahu’s Tangled Web”, Free Radical, Nos.26-8, August-December 1997

[1]          F. Glen, “Australians at War in New Zealand”, ISBN 987-1-87742-739-8. 2011, p.146

[i]       S. Devoy, “Bay of Plenty Times”, Guest Editorial, 4th February 2017

[ii]      J.O.C. Phillips, “Mediaworks,” 2nd April 2016

[iii]     M. Johnson, Senior Journalist, “NZ Herald”, 28th October 2017

[iv]    B. Moon, for an augmented account, see “NZ Voice”, March 2017, pp.40ff.

[v]     J. Cowan, “The New Zealand Wars”, 1922-3

[vi]    J. Robinson, “When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience, ISBN 1-872970-31-1, 2012, p.64

[vii]   J. Jackson, detailed list of transactions provided, 26th June 2017

[viii]  A. Everton, “Nga Tahu’s Tangled Web”, Free Radical, Nos.26-8, August-December 1997

[ix]    F. Glen, “Australians at War in New Zealand”, ISBN 987-1-87742-739-8. 2011, p.146

 

© 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.

It helps a lot to SHARE or LIKE us through the social media network! https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

Help us fight for the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement!

We need you to help get our message further out by donating. See www.100days.co.nz-  Thank you!

 

 

 

Downplaying the very real threats to New Zealand?

The very real threats to New Zealand?

It’s not as if they aren’t substantial. And this Key-led government is causing considerable concern, perhaps not to a prattling commentariat, but to the country at large. Away from the political and media areas with their self-absorbed interactions, New Zealanders want to know what’s going on…why our country is being sold out to the highest bidders. And what precautions are being taken to guard against the rise of the same militant Islam that is proving so very damaging to other Western democracies.

Arguing for a silver fern branding to replace a time-honoured flag which carries significant meaning to most New Zealanders is a shortfall in thinking. The John Key–instigated extravaganza is pushing for this. However, if yet another Chinese investor now gains a controlling share in New Zealand’s largest meat company, called Silver Fern Farms, this will rather muddy the waters. To whom will the silver fern emblem belong – to New Zealanders? Or to another in the list of super-wealthy buyers from Communist China hoovering up our land and our assets – while the government apparently couldn’t care less.

On the contrary, Bill English apparently wants to help them. This time Winston Peters is not the only politician speaking out on behalf of New Zealanders. Labour leader Andrew Little has charged the Overseas Investment Office with doing too little monitoring after investments have been okayed, and warning that there is always a risk with this government that they will water down the tighter controls and check and balances {needed} to preserve and protect our strategic interests and industries”.

Little is walking right past the fact that these checks and balances are already manifestly inadequate. At the same time, the Finance Minister, Bill English, so often the mouthpiece for his boss, John Key, when it comes to making unpopular statements, is admitting that “the government may beef up the Overseas Investment Office to make it quicker for foreigners to get permission to buy New Zealand assets.”

Of course. And this is the government which still hasn’t answered why, when the Crafar Farms were originally sold, any New Zealanders interested in acquiring them were told they could bid only for the job lot, as it were. This of course put the farms out of the reach of our own countrymen. However, they were advertised in Asia as being able to be bought individually.

This is known as loading the dice. What the National-led government has not been successfully charged with, thanks to an over-compliant media, is selling out New Zealanders in favour of foreign investors…

Yet the oligarchy now ruling this country can’t be ignorant of the fact that, as a 60 Minute programme recently highlighted, Communist China is intent on taking over and controlling all aspects of productive land here and elsewhere, worldwide, that it can – what it produces; how it is marketed and transported – not for the benefit of the countries it is commercially invading – but for its own purposes. In Australia, vast amounts of productive land are now falling into Communist hands with farmers forced off farms that have been for generations in the same family. The banks on which farmers relied are now apparently only too happy to take cash, and to stand by, while this is happening.

Oh, but, Bill English assures us…” The government won’t dilute strict laws that set out conditions for foreign buyers.” This is basically poppycock. Any clever lawyer well able to be afforded by the multimillionaires muscling their way into this country can run rings around these “strict laws”. Money counts… And what it is saying to New Zealanders is – Goodbye to your own country.

While English is mouthing about the legislation not being watered down, he’s averting his eyes from the fact that it is already far too accommodating to foreign buyers – at the expense of New Zealanders. He has the nerve to say that “people who are going through the process often complain about it, and that we have to point out to them that the intent of the process is that it is difficult and it’s pretty challenging.” Really? He rather gives the show away, doesn’t he, when he admits, “all I’m saying is that we get complaints and we are listening to those.”

Well, no news here. This Key-led government, now widely regarded as selling out the country, has very obviously long been listening to big money talking. We can recall how Prime Minister Key quite blatantly , in face of all the evidence, refused to admit that there was even a housing problem in Auckland! And among other foreign buyers of our already snapped-up assets, the red flag of Communist China is stretching across our farmland, our important companies, our housing stock, as we become more and more virtually colonised by this aggressive and increasingly predatory country.

Farmer shareholders and New Zealand First have raised much-needed opposition to Silver Ferns Farms, New Zealand’s largest meat company falling into Chinese hands. Not that today’s National government could care less. English suggests that farmers put their money where their mouth is…regardless of the fact that the vagaries of farming ensure that very often farmers are not in a position, even collectively, to raise the sort of money needed to protect their own industries. And given we are now relatively poor, a reality which can only be attributed to the incompetence of successive governments mismanaging the assets of a country rich in natural resources, we can now guarantee we will be outbid by mega-wealthy investors regarding us as a ripe plum ready for the picking. The rush is on. Moreover, our newly-lowered interest rates for borrowing are to make it even easier for the buyers.

This is not just a question of a reality check, of an investment being a positive thing for the primary sector, as Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy likes to present it. It’s also become a question of New Zealand selling out its most productive assets, and so being deprived of a tax intake – which in future will increase the taxation burden on ordinary New Zealanders. As John Key has already blithely acknowledged, the wealthy can structure their financial affairs to avoid paying any significant tax at all… and who doubts this?

What of the other looming threat to New Zealand posed by focusing on Muslim-only refugee rescue packages? Why are we aiming to take in only Syrians? What about the Christian communities being systematically butchered by ISIS in the Middle East and in Africa?

Worldwide now, those Christian values which underpinned and stabilised the West as cornerstones of our democracies, standing strongly for the rights, responsibilities and the importance of the individual, are coming under attack – not only in Communist China – where far more today declare themselves as Christian than as belonging to the CCP- but in Obama’s America, presided over what many now regard as a rogue President in a country so undermined by the ultra-liberalism of Hollywood’s attack on these values, that here, too, Christians are now being targeted, vilified, and taken to court – particularly as a result of the intolerance and aggressiveness of the new gay propagandist movement, and its bullying tactics.

Every country’s first duty is to its own citizens. And the fact that so many hundreds of thousands, even, estimatedly, millions are now fleeing from the oppression and the barbarity of their fellow citizens, and that we arguably have a moral obligation to do what we can manage, to help the most vulnerable of these, does not mean that we should not be very clear-headed about what we are doing.

But first with the head – then with the heart…Both need to be on board. Knee-jerk reactions targeting civilian refugees can neglect the fact that as brilliant Australian commentator Bill Muehlenberg poinst out, political Islam and creeping Sharia are a very real threat accompanying Muslim immigration. And countries such as the UK, France, Denmark and Holland are now paying dearly for the way they so uncritically embraced the flawed ideology of multiculturalism – rather than insisting upon the need for new immigrants to assimilate into an already existing democratic community, and to pledge allegiance to democratic values. The quite wrong claim that all ethnic cultures are equal in value, even those which are inherently antagonistic to the West, which subjugate and abuse their women, and which claim the right to import separatist practices which undermine our hard-won democratic rights and values, should be utterly rejected. But it may well be too late now for much of Europe to make a stand against being undermined from within.

What we cannot afford to ignore is the excellent analysis of the situation centring on the Syrian refugees in Bill’s excellent, clear-headed article on the Syrian refugees. See http://billmuehlenberg.com/2015/09/07/on-the-syrian-refugees/

As he points out, our natural wish to help genuine refugees must not be divorced from thinking critically. Each nation has the right to defend its borders, and to determine what is a feasible number of genuine refugees or asylum seekers which can be accepted. Isis is already threatening to flood Europe with half a million immigrants in a psychological attack against the West. Isis also boasts that thousands of its operatives are already in place in Europe, disguised as refugees. “Five of the wealthiest Muslim countries have taken no Syrian refugees at all, arguing that doing so would open them to the risk of terrorism… And although the oil-rich countries have handed over aid money, Britain has donated more than Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar combined.”

In other words, while “Muslim nations are admitting that Muslim refugees pose a genuine terrorist threat, the West is supposed to throw its doors wide open, with no questions asked. That is a recipe for national suicide.” With good reason, Islamic groups believe that refugees from Syria and other countries will spread Sharia, which is the main goal of jihad.”

In the same article, English commentator Peter Hitchens offers some sober thinking, including the fact that many so-called refugees are, rather, economic immigrants, and that a Muslim dominated government is foreseen as coming to pass in France about seven years from now, ushered into power by the French Tory and Labour partieswith the aim of wanting France to disappear – to be integrated into European Federation.

Given the very real radical Muslim threat to the West, and that multiculturalism is very much a failed policy, we must take steps to ensure that those coming here conduct themselves as genuine refugees, pledging their allegiance to this country.

For example, every new immigrant should be required to take an oath of loyalty to New Zealand as a Constitutional Monarch, and every immigrant child should be required to study and be tested in the national curriculum in schools – even if attending a special church school, as Catholic children often do in this country.

We must reserve the right to expel any immigrants – to send them back to their own country – if they break the law. Women should not be allowed to conceal their faces, nor should they be allowed to be subjected to cultural and sexual bullying, according to the customs of some Muslim males. And other immigrants intent on following their own religious practices, such as turban-wearing Sikhs claiming the right to carry carrying ceremonial daggers on aircraft, should be obliged instead to prioritise our democratic customs, not only for reasons of security, but as a courtesy to the country that has accepted them.

Moreover, as Switzerland has done, we must object to minarets being erected so that the call of the muezzin can be broadcast over towns and cities – a form of noisy cultural bullying in a country that is not Muslim. The Swiss people stood up to their government, voting to prevent any more being erected.

There is an argument that the young men fleeing to the West should stay in their own country and fight back. However, although mothers, babies and children should undoubtedly take precedence as refugees, to stay would mean certain death for many others, particularly where they have no way of successfully fighting back.

Rather than permitting enclaves of particular nationalities to be set up, the suggestion of every town taking in a refugee family offers a far more successful chance of genuine integration.


We’ve done very badly in the West. Our governments conned us for a long time by maintaining, in response to radicalized pressure groups, that assimilation was not the answer, and that all cultures are equal in value. And quite deliberately fomented racism – to which we’ve been long been subjected, with special rights, privilege, funding given to those of part-Maori descent – (without even a definition of who or what is predominantly genetically Maori) – has had the effect of destabilizing society, and continually raiding the pockets of taxpayers. The result has been hugely divisive, with opportunistic iwi, too close to the ear of government, now perceived as being motivated largely by greed, and cultural centre-staging.

There is no argument that migration has in many ways been a powerful and positive contributor to the growth of this country – from the arrival of the first colonists onwards. They made New Zealand what it is today, a country whose forebears were English, Scottish, Irish, Polish, Dalmation, German, French, Italian, Jewish, Yugoslav, people of many different backgrounds who, over the generations with intermarriage with Maori (our previous immigrants) made integration the norm. The result was a remarkably stable mixture of the descendants of all these peoples.

Whether we are on track for a quite different and far more damaging period ahead will very much depend on claiming back our country, as New Zealanders, from a succession of governments which have made very bad decisions, costing us all – and which are apparently determined to carry on doing so. Already the winds of change have flown in birds of ill omen, with the threat to this country now coming both from outside, and from within our own borders.

© Amy Brooke, Convener, The 100 Days –  Claiming Back New Zealand

They’re dying,while the wily John Key has us arguing

We’ve all seen the pictures. The little three year old boy, drowned, lying on the sand…A mother in an agony of loss, her two much-loved little daughters dead. They are ordinary family people, just like us – fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, wives and husbands. They are dying, starving, destitute, losing hope – and scores of thousands are already dead.

They are dying, and desperate – while John Key has us arguing about his vanity flag project.

They are posing an enormous challenge to the countries to which they are fleeing from the butchery in the Middle East. Hey, but we’re busy, aren’t we, arguing about the colours on a possible (though highly unlikely) new flag for this country?

However, according to the Herald, although John Key has long resisted requests to increase New Zealand’s refugee quota, there are signs that he may be softening his stance. He has now announced that “we’re not ruling out doing more”.

Who are we? John Key, who now virtually rules this once far more democratic country? And apparently, changing the flag that commemorates our forefathers, to turn it into a mere branding image, is a number one priority for our lightweight Prime Minister, who likes to disparagingly use the word “colonial” to rubbish a great heritage left to us . This centres on the values and traditions of the centuries-old fight for democracy, and the Christian underpinning of the West. However, in our increasingly secularised and fragmenting society, as these values come more and more under attack, it may be time to face the fact that when we lose them, we will have lost what turned us into a civilisation – even if one that is now gradually disintegrating.

Our present flag and that of our Australian friends are not a purposeless assemblage of design gimmicks. They can remind us that the “three crosses of St George, St Andrew and St Patrick acknowledge the principles and ideals flowing from the British heritage of European settlers; including parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, freedom of speech and the rights and responsibilities of citizens.”

And meanwhile, the Australians are laughing at us. No wonder. It was a New Zealander who submitted one of the five almost identical designs that was adopted as the Australian flag, which carries a fifth star within the Southern Cross, and one larger star, that of Federation.

A silver fern, a piece of (green) plant which has been adopted, little by little (and by no means without a gradually implemented, radicalized agenda) as an emblem on sporting teams representing New Zealand) doesn’t carry the same weight. Nor do any of the four slick (three repetitively similar) designs now selected to challenge the flag of those who came before us.

And from the site of Facebook https://www.facebook.com/acmnorepublic: Here’s the short list for the best NZ beach towel. The comments on these are overwhelmingly negative. And “In the meantime Karl Puschmann reveals in the New Zealand Herald that the ” whole ‘Change the Flag’ debate was just a big Government distraction to take attention away from the real scandal going on right under our noses.”

Which scandal, though? That of our country being sold out piece by piece to the highest bidders? A country where our farmland is being priced out of the reach of the people of this country. A country where political decisions and a mismanaged economy have produced the unthinkable – a situation where many New Zealanders can no longer even hope to buy a house of their own.

John Key apparently has a very strong ego which justifies, in his thinking, the $26 million estimated as the cost of the two referenda which he has planned, in order to get rid of our flag. But this will be a mere drop in the bottomless bucket of the many more, million of dollars – if his personal push succeeds – to change all the flags, the atlases, the textbooks, the insignia on buildings, the passports. We can probably factor in hundreds of millions of dollars if one determined individual, bent on getting his own way, succeeds – now cuddling up to sporting heroes like Richie McCaw, to assist him – to the disappointment of many who will feel that McCaw should not have allowed himself to be part of the PM’s propaganda campaign on this issue.

So, while desperate individuals flee from the carnage of the Middle East, and the reversals to barbarism of Central Africa, New Zealanders have been inveigled into arguing about which beach towel design they could opt for.

Too bad that our cash-strapped hospitals are now even removing patients from their waiting lists; that there are New Zealanders with life-threatening diseases requiring expensive medication having this withheld, because the country apparently can’t afford it. Too bad that Starship Children’s Hospital has to send out begging letters to raise the money to buy the equipment needed to treat children to the best of their ability. Too bad that the police are being constantly badgered to reduce even further their already inadequate budget. If John Key wants to prioritise his wish for a new flag, apparently this takes precedence.

That our flag is similar to that of Australia is a very minor quibble. All around the world variations of tricolour flags are genuinely confusing, whereas it takes only a glance to tell the difference between our flag and that of our Commonwealth neighbour. Moreover, we are both Anzacs. Our people, New Zealanders and Australians, fought and died together – and apart from our very reasonable dislike for the unsporting antics of the Australian cricket team, we rub along pretty well.

We may have a money-man for PM this side of the ditch – but we need to show him that a county’s flag isn’t just about making money – isn’t just an export brand. And that prioritizing his wants, while people are dying, forced to flee their own homes, their country, their own people– let alone downplaying or dismissing the very real problems facing this country, shames him – and us all.

© Amy Brooke, Convener – The 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand.

 

A brave and funny man – and Abbott says no to the TPP

A brave and funny man issues his own flag challenge – and Australia says NO to the TPP. But will John Key still be “comfortable”?  As usual?

Having the courage of one’s convictions has become a luxury for many these days. It’s virtually political suicide if you’re a member of a political party. These days you do as you’re told…especially if you’re in the National Party, now virtually ruled by an authoritarian leader – with a few close henchmen. This is what’s known not as a democracy, but as a political oligarchy.

However, nobody seems to have told the funny and clever National Party MP for Tamaki, Simon O’Connor that he’s supposed to do as he’s told – that even exercising a conscience vote can make you a marked man. The result was his heartening and very amusing YouTube declaration of independence in answer to the PM’s usual guff. Rather than fronting up to a debate in the house in relation to his squandering scores of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to get his own way – in relation to repudiating the New Zealand flag – John Key issued a YouTube recording expounding on all the wonderful advantages a new flag will have. Yawn.

Simon O’Connor’s own YouTube reply is classic, and unmissable. — http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/no-no-no-mp-tamaki-nails-colours-flag-debate-jw-177164

The trouble is so many New Zealanders don’t believe the PM. Not any more – although it should be remembered that when media talk about John Key’s landslide victory in the last election, they’re absolutely wrong. Accessing the web will give you the number of seats National got in Parliament – one fewer than previously. But the actual vote for the National Party was down in the mid-thirty percent. They are very definitely a minority government.

It was the dog’s breakfast combination of opposing political parties which split the Opposition vote – although the public is turning towards Winston Peters and his repudiation of policies which divide this country – (including special rights only for those of Maori descent) – which show which way the wind is blowing. New Zealanders in effect are tired of being taken to the cleaners to fund highly dubious, in some cases now downright fraudulent treaty claims.

The public is also angered by Key’s appropriating of public money for a new flag, to get his own way – when there are desperately needy areas in which it could have been productively used. Hospitals are losing much-needed specialists because of unreasonable workloads, and the prospect of far better pay overseas. The police are constantly being exhorted to cut costs – although they are already more then stretched to provide the services the country should be able to expect. And apparently, although a lot of unease has been expressed by politicians behind the scenes, including by National Party members, who among these has stood up to be counted?

All the more reason why we should be applauding Simon O’Connor’s brave and very funny scrutiny of the 40 pedestrian, predictably repetitive suggestions for a replacement flag for this country – which the Prime Minister thinks are great. Well, he would, wouldn’t he? But should the mere opinion of one, arguably egotistical individual be costing the country what it is?

We have lost a great deal, when the time has long gone that individuals of conviction routinely stood up for what they believed in and crossed the floor of the House. They were respected for doing so. Moreover, their courage often inspired others. The saying, “One man with courage makes a majority,” attributed to Andrew Jackson, has served as an inspiration for so many making a brave stand against the zeitgeist of their age.

However, what when making a stand against the increasing number of politically correct compliance issues from the bully boys and girls costs people their jobs, their promotions? What when people are becoming intimidated by more and more repressive legislation, policed by government investigators eager to pounce on any speaking out of turn? There is increasing disquiet at what many regard as the ill-thought pronouncements of our over-enthusiastic Race Relations Conciliator, apparently poised to pounce at the slightest supposed transgression.

Whatever has happened to freedom of speech? What when individuals of courage can be hauled before the courts for speaking to the truth of an issue as they see it – especially when they see the directions of the day are on target to produce Huxley’s “brave new world” – the one their children and grandchildren are going to be forced to endure, as the creeping State exercises more and more damaging control over their lives? Whatever is happening to freedom of speech – and fair debate?

Be prepared to be shocked. Canada, now only a little ahead of New Zealand in being regarded as one of the most politically correct, over-liberal countries in the world, has now embarked on unacceptable contradictions against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is almost incredible that this country has now taken to prosecuting its citizens for supposedly “hate crimes”. For example, for anyone in Canada to argue, with impeccable logic, that “marriage is between a man and a woman” is now treated as a hate crime.

This isn’t just a horrible possibility – as it is yet, in this country, with politicians increasingly under pressure from radicalised pressure groups pushing agenda which would have rightly horrified those who fought for our freedom, and for those values which traditionally underpinned and stabilised our Western society.

In Canada now, the situation has become Orwellian, as recounted in an Australian News Weekly article by Peter Kelleher, highlighting the message of Dawn Stefanowicz whose book – Out from Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, tells her own story of an entire childhood spent in the house with a homosexual father and his string of partners, most of whom have died of AIDS, including her father.

“From her Canadian home today, Dawn has been in communication with over 50 adult children who were raised by GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) parents and who now share her concerns about same-sex marriage and parenting. She says that many of these now adults struggle with their own sexuality and sense of gender because of the influence in their household environments growing up.”

Her warning to Australian not to go down the same path of same-sex marriage highlights the deterioration in Canadians’ freedoms over the past 10 years, and calls us with urgency to wake up to what the endgame of the GLBT rights movement involves: centralised State power and the end of the freedoms of religion, of expression, of association, and of assembly.”

In many respect, it is also too late for New Zealand. We are proceeding down the same path. In Canada, even to have a debate about same-sex marriage is a breach of discrimination laws! “If you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including anything questioning same-sex marriage) you could face discipline at work, or even termination of employment and perhaps prosecution under the law.

“Dawn asks why police prosecute speech under the guise of eliminating “hate speech” when there are already legal remedies and criminal protections against slander, defamation, threats and assault, that equally apply to all.

“It is because hate-crime-like policies using the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” create unequal protection under law… Protected groups receive more legal protection than other groups: this is the Orwellian flower in full bloom.”

Moreover, “Canadians were told over and over that permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights”. This has been shown to be a lie. The definition of parenting, too, was immediately redefined with the phrase “natural parent” now changed to legal “parent”. Who a child’s parents are is now defined by the State, in legislation designed to erase biological parenthood.’

Dawn Stefanowicz’s book deserves a wider audience in this country, as, given the political climate of the day, and two overbearing Prime Ministers of both Labour and National, quite different in style, but both far from conservative – in the best sense of the word – and equally exercising a determined control over their own party – we have progressed a long way from the expectation that members of Parliament should represent their constituents, in what we called a representative democracy.

This is far from what we now have, where MPs are expected to pledge their loyal first and foremost to the Party – which is today, in effect, the PM and his hierarchy. Nowadays, our MPs may grumble, but in the National Party in particular they are reduced to being a pushover. When the Prime Minister says Jump – they jump. As Minister Nick Smith admitted in an unguarded moment – he himself asks, How high?

In so many areas of our national life, we have already down the same path as Canada – given Amy Adams’ Harmful Digital Communications Bill – another of the step-by-step restrictions on our right to free speech – under a feel-good guise of reasonable intent. But how very easy it is to claim “emotional distress” – and how inexorably such legislation has unexpected consequences as a first-only wedge in the door. Our abortion laws, for example, so swiftly became stretched in intent, with the elastication of the word “reasonable” to the stage where thousands of New Zealand’s pre-birth babies are now put to death each year – before they have a chance to be born.

How long will it be until we reach the situation in Canada where “just one claim laid before the Human Rights Commission’s tribunal can cause a person to be bought before the tribunal with the cost to the defendant in the tens of thousands of legal fees, plus a fine of $5000 for a first offence; plus a gag order? The taxpayer picks up the tab for the person making the complaint, yet the defendant, even when found innocent, cannot recover his legal costs.”

Moreover, “when same-sex marriage was created in Canada, gender neutral language became legally mandated…. to be inclusive, non-gender-specific language is being imposed in media, government, workplaces, and schools. A special curriculum is being used to teach students how to use gender neutral language to describe a husband and wife, father and mother. Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and even pronouns – (he and she) are being steadily eradicated in Canadian schools.”

As Dawn points out: “Gay identity is a social construct, in that it demands public recognition from others. Yet the Supreme Court of the US , in its deliberations on whether to alter the age-old human institution of family by allowing same-sex marriage did not even consider what the effect might be on children who, after all, are seldom found outside families, and often make up the greater part of the members. These, the vulnerable and the voiceless were rendered invisible and silenced. “ As she relates, she was one of these children. Yet, as she details, children will often deny their grief and pretend they don’t miss a biological parent, even when they experience a painful void. Her experience is that for the children of homosexual parents, their partner (s) can never replace the missing biological parent.

“And then of course, anyone who owns a business, wedding planners rental halls, bed-and-breakfast owners, florists, photographers and bakers have already seen their freedoms eroded, their conscience ignored and religious freedoms trampled in Canada… “Small businesses are particularly in the sights of the gender neutral as they are easier to isolate and to take down one at a time… while big business has seen the writing on the wall, and has come down on the side of the same sex activists.”

There is much more of which this author warns us, where already one well-known media commentator has already been silenced for merely “offending “certain persons. And instances where anyone can make a frivolous or aggressive claim of being “offended” carry just as many warnings for New Zealanders.

Who can doubt that New Zealand is heading down this same path, with a far-ranging attack on all our institutions, our traditional values, our cultural cohesion – with its former aim of equal rights for all regardless of colour, race, and gender? No wonder the political enthusiasm for doing away with the New Zealand flag with its reminder of our priceless heritage, incorporated in the crosses of St George and St Andrew reminding us, under a southern sky, of our historical origins.

Ah, but apparently our Prime Minister has other priorities than to be reminded of than our historical origins – at least with respect to our forefathers from Great Britain and Europe who built this country up to what it is today. While part-Maori are urged by our apparatchiks to stay immersed in a highly sanitised version of their past, Key essentially disparages our colonial forebears – many of whom underwent severe privation and fought in major wars to keep this country safe for New Zealanders. Key, on the other hand, invokes the failed cliché of multiculturalism, which has already caused so much damage to formerly cohesive societies overseas, promoting social unrest, and even violence. The next step will be the rubbishing of our national anthem, which, sang at the tempo in which it was written, is a rousing and fine call for protection for this land – now more than ever needed.

The arrogance of this three times National Government is now showing, John Key’s populist hero halo becoming tarnished. The PM himself has joined the condescending, sharp-tongued Chris Finlayson, whose dismissal as “clowns “ or “nutters” of those asking reasonable questions is echoed in Tim Groser’s lofty remark about leaving TPP negotiations “to the grown-ups”. John Key’s annoyed reaction to a large protest march in Auckland was dismissive and unpleasant, calling a third of the demonstrators “rent- a-crowd”.

And yet, in spite of the too often puerile commenting on Australia’s Prime Minister from of our media columnists (such as with Jane Clifton’s cheap reference to “Tony Abbott, who (sic) I can’t look at without thinking of the head of an old hot water bottle, the ears like rubber handles at each side”… New Zealanders might well be better off with Tony Abbott as our Prime Minister.

How many know – our mainstream media certainly aren’t telling us – that, as News Weekly points out, the Australian Prime Minister has resisted immense pressure from the United government to sign an unsatisfactory TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) agreement “which would have prevented higher exports of farm products to the US, while giving higher levels of protections to the US pharmaceutical industry, pushing up prices for prescription drugs in Australia.” While our PM is happy to obligingly roll over on this issue (loading even more costs onto the taxpayer) Australia has held out against US pressure to sign on the dotted line.

This – as The Australian newspaper has reported – even though “President Barack Obama called Tony Abbott to strong-arm him into agreeing with US proposals to increase the patient protection of pharmaceuticals from five years to 12. There were no US concessions on exports of Australian sugar and primary products.”

The Australian Prime Minister has done a lot better than ours – Tony Abbott flatly rejected the Osama proposal.

There are many New Zealanders now raising questions about what exactly is John Key’s agenda, and why he is allowing a virtually unrestricted buy-up of New Zealand land, farms and houses, when one of the three main responsibilities of government is “the defence of the realm”.

Already our country has greatly changed, and from a friend leaving to go back to England, and, like do many former immigrants, noting how much this country has deteriorated from the New Zealand they first encountered, has come this troubled email.

“I kind of feel we all have let the world down. Where’s our pride, our support to those who sacrificed their lives for the good of mankind?

“When you think about it, it’s sad. I feel my wonderful world is slipping away and we are entering a dark age, an age where decency and morality is just disappearing into   a spiralling vortex. What we have taken for granted for so long is now starting to fall apart and we will be forced in to a new age – and it will happen right under our noses.”

Who can seriously disagree?

There is no doubt that our political system is moving to control more and more of our lives. We no longer have a genuine democracy. But there *is* time to reclaim it, if enough individuals – for it always depends upon individuals’ and individual conscience – are willing to support our 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand initiative, to fight for what the Swiss people long ago fought for – and which enabled them, not their political class, to take control of the directions of their country. See www.100days.co nz . The result? Switzerland has become the most successful and stable democracy in the world.

All it takes is each man or woman with the courage of their convictions, caring enough to insist on a new political configuration – the 100 Days.

If you do care, support us!                                                            *

© Amy Brooke, Convener. The 100 Days– author of The 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand –what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians – available through any good bookshop, or from Kindle.