Is Jacinda Ardern basically worryingly ignorant?

Is Jacinda Ardern basically worryingly ignorant?

I was forced to wear a hijab. It wasn’t liberating.”

“Why World Hijab Day is an insult to girls like me”.

If New Zealanders have a right to expect their Prime Ministers to have a realistic grasp of world affairs, shouldn’t Miss Ardern have known a lot better than to hastily don a hijab, no matter how well intentioned – upsetting so many brave women who have fought so long against this symbol of male oppression in the Middle East?

Shouldn’t she have known this – and a lot else? Is it time to ask whether or not our PM lacks good judgment?

This is the PM who also condescended to the Australians about their very important policy of discouraging invasions by boat people jumping the queue – and who reportedly suddenly, no doubt inadvertently, made New Zealand suddenly an attractive choice for those unscrupulous profiteers preying on those abandoning their own countries. This is the same Jacinda who doubted that New Zealand has Russian spies in this country –( which would certainly make a change…)and who apparently doesn’t like what she is hearing, reported from Australia, that China’s spy agency was behind the burglary of Dr Anne-Marie Brady’s home and university office – and a tampering with her car. See below***

Soutiam Goodarzi

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/i-was-forced-to-wear-a-hijab-it-wasnt-liberating/

16 February 2019
“It was World Hijab Day earlier this month. You probably missed it, but you can imagine the idea: ‘global citizens’ of all faiths and backgrounds were asked to cover their heads for a day ‘in solidarity with Muslim women worldwide’. It is done in ‘recognition of millions of Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab and live a life of modesty’.

“Wearing a hijab is not such an abstract cause for me: I used to wear one a few years ago when I was at school in Iran. And in the spirit of solidarity, I’d like to tell you a bit more about the world I left behind when I moved to Britain in 2011 when I was nine years old.

” I was six when I was first made to wear the hijab to school. When I was eight, I was forced to wear the hijab while walking around Arak, my hometown in north–western Iran. I did so in fear of the ‘modesty’ police, who patrolled the streets looking for anyone who dared to remove their hijab.

” For one year we had a nice teacher who on rare occasions allowed us to take our hijabs off in class, provided the door was closed, the windows shut and the blinds completely pulled. Why? There was a male janitor who used to sweep the playground, and Allah forbade that he should lay his eyes on an underage girl’s hair. She could go to hell for that.

” My teachers deemed it appropriate to shove their hands into my hijab and push my hair back to prevent a single strand of hair being on show. The intrusion didn’t stop there. Each week, we had physical checks of our hair and nails — and also, in case we were tempted to try jewellery, our ears, chests and wrists. Wearing large hairclips wasn’t allowed, despite the fact that they were hidden by our hijabs. To this day I haven’t figured out why a flower-shaped clip is provocative. Underneath the hijab, our hair had to be either short or in a firm ponytail, so that the style of hair didn’t accentuate certain areas of the fabric.

“Schoolteachers weren’t the only ones keeping a close eye on us. Iran’s modesty police were a constant and stressful presence in our lives. I’d learned, out of habit, to avoid them as much as possible, though that certainly became difficult when they didn’t want to avoid you. They used to park tactically in the road where the hair and makeup salons were ready to arrest anyone who they deemed ‘immodest’. They even arrested someone I know who was at the airport about to board a flight to Australia, because her manteau (a loose jacket that is mandatory in Iran for modesty reasons) was ‘too short’. And no, this wasn’t another era: it was just a few years ago.

” I was taught that the hijab was intended to keep a girl pure and away from the eyes of men. This is why the hijab represents a form of victim-blaming. The premise is that men are expected to act like predators, and that girls should feel they are to blame should anything untoward happen.

” If the janitor were to think impure thoughts about one of the girls in my class, that would have been her fault. If a married man thinks about a woman inappropriately, it is deemed to be her fault. Then again, he could always take her as his second wife (a practice still common in Iran).

” Some argue that the hijab is liberating for women. Having come from the inside, I can tell you: the hijab, and the kind of rule I lived under, isn’t about feminism. It isn’t an empowering rejection of being judged by your appearance. It is a form of submission: the chaining up of women to the mullahs who promulgate this nonsense. For women who have been forced to wear a hijab, World Hijab Day is an insult. It’s an open attempt to portray oppressors as victims, and to overlook the feelings of women who have been taught to believe throughout their lives that they are second-class beings.

“I have found my life in Britain to be a liberation, but it staggers me to see so much nonsense spoken about the hijab and the regime I escaped. There are brave women imprisoned in Iran for various infractions of the modesty code; there are women who have been treated appallingly for wearing a hijab that is too loose or transparent. More recently, there have been women punished for not wearing a hijab. And yet the hijab is now celebrated in the West. ‘It’s OK to be modest,’ say the hijab’s apologists. Well of course, but there is nothing modest about brushing over the suffering of the women and girls of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

“I have tended to keep quiet about the fact that I used to wear a hijab. I was so wounded by the horrors of Islam that I wanted to pretend it never existed. But in Britain I realise I now have a voice, and that I am not a second-class citizen who should be scared of talking out of turn. I have also realised that I don’t deserve to be scolded by religious women for ditching the hijab. In Britain, it is acceptable to be a free woman. You don’t have to obey the restrictive demands of your father, husband or government.

” I have changed a lot since I was six. I’m now 16, and while I can’t say I have better hair, I have something even better: freedom. I now try to see World Hijab Day as a day to celebrate being free of the hijab. Women like me who have escaped the veil can use this day to rejoice in our newfound liberty.”

As reader comments:” True solidarity would see all Western, non-Muslim women never wearing a hijab, in moral support of the Muslim women who are forced to cover their hair – until Muslim women have complete freedom. Until then, it is unavoidably a symbol of theocratic male oppression.”

Shouldn’t our PM  have known this – and a lot else…?

This is the PM who also condescended to the Australians about their very important policy of discouraging invasions by the boat people jumping the queue – and who reportedly suddenly, no doubt inadvertently, made New Zealand an attractive choice for those unscrupulous profiteers, preying on         those abandoning their own countries. This is the same Jacinda who doubted that New Zealand has Russian spies in this country –( which would certainly make a change…) and who apparently doesn’t like what she is hearing, reported from Australia, that China’s spy agency was behind the burglary of Dr Anne-Marie Brady’s home and university office – and the dangerous tampering with her car.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12220421

What this apparently worryingly under-informed Prime Minister needs to take on board is that , as the temporary leader of a Labour Party which nearly two thirds of the country rejected in the last election – hence the cobbled- up coalition – she is basically simply the chairman of her party… and that her illogical views on diversity ( i.e. division, divisiveness?) which took shape under the failed doctrine of multiculturalism overseas  – needs to be rethought – or at the very least not imposed upon the country.

With good reason it has been said that country divided against itself cannot stand.

It would be more than foolish to forget that that assimilation – the acceptance of all New Zealanders dedicated to the democratic cohesion of the country – is what we should be asking for from those who live here or wish to make this country their home.

Equal rights for all – regardless of, colour, gender, race or creed has always been the flag of democracy.

Separatism – where rifts begin to develop because individual ethnic groups or fundamentalist religions begin to demand preference – or special acknowledgement – cannot coexist with a stable democracy.

 On the contrary,  a country survives peacefully when all individuals work with a common purpose. And a common understanding of how easily democratic freedoms can be lost needs to be constantly kept in mind.

In the end, everything depends upon the commitment of individuals to remember how so many of our forebears fought for this – many giving up their lives to do so. Should we be letting them down?

©Amy Brooke, Convenor, The 100 Days.  www.100days.co.nz

 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 Amazon’s Kindle.

 

— Amy Brooke Visit my homepage and children’s literature website: www.amybrooke.co.nz

www.100days.co.nz

The UN Compact on Global Migration – a disgraceful affair

The UN Compact on Global Migration – a disgraceful affair

What many regard with good reason as the sneaky signing of this potentially damaging agreement is going to be the turning point for so many.

Right across the country, well-informed New Zealanders are shocked at what is seen as a thoroughly underhand  effort by our Left-wing Coalition government to deliberately postpone  endorsing this UN agenda-driven, control move against the West  – (no matter what Winston thinks about it)  – until just as Parliament closes down for the year.

Why should we be surprised? It’s certainly not the first time that determined politicians,  very well aware that  the country, nationwide, is strongly opposed to  some agenda-driven legislation, have deliberately pushed it through right on the verge of Christmas when Parliament is closing down. And, of course – hoping that we will all be too busy at this very special time of the year to be able to mount a sufficient protest.

Well, the days of civic protest, of marches on Parliament  – not by special interest groups but by New Zealanders now increasingly concerned about what is happening to this country –  are coming closer. What sort of democracy do we now have when this delayed decision has been deliberately contrived  – in order to prevent the Opposition from providing much-need debate – and from highlighting the flaws in the government’s arguments?

But it is certainly helping New Zealanders further towards coming of age politically.

The level of anger that the government has taken this route is palpable – much of it directed at Winston Peters – whose intelligence has never been doubted – but who is now quoting the Crown Law Office as virtually saying everything is just fine… that all the other Western countries, acting on obviously far better informed, expert advice – and saying no to signing this weasel document  – are just wrong.  In Winston’s view…

Regardless of what lawyers from the Crown Law Office have said – apparently more or less to the point that everything is hunky-dory – we just don’t believe them – with very good reason. Moreover, although at the moment that’s another issue, the Crown Law Office has arguably already proved itself less than competent in the past.

This country is now divided into two camps – that of the political class – versus the people. And we all now know the former take no real notice of New Zealanders,  except at election time. Jacinda Ardern’s hard-Left, Labour-Green  socialist grouping now has the bit well and truly between its teeth – and we’re all going to be paying… And paying. As one commentator has noted, socialism is basically fascism – and inflicting this legislation on a country strongly opposed to it is basically a fascist move.

Winston –  I hear on all sides – is going to be toast, at the next election.  He is widely regarded as having let down this country.  One perception is that his obvious, extreme  antagonism towards the National Party, strongly opposed to this insidious UN Compact, has led the position he has taken – which, to many now shocked New Zealanders, is a betrayal of their trust in him.

Which way to go now?

It has become more and more obvious to so many that politicians simply can’t be trusted  – and that the only way forward  is not through launching and backing yet another political  party, but through achieving a tipping point of New Zealanders to support our highly winnable movement  to win back this country.

See http://www.100Days.co.nz- and join us to help in this crucial fight! 

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

The Compact for Migration? Yet another control push by the UN…

(Apologies if you’ve already received this. Re-sending, as most didn’t).

 

The Compact for Migration? We all know it’s basically yet another control push by the UN… 

Given all the countries that have pulled out to date, when is Jacinda Ardern going to stop dithering and  take on board the fact that so many other democracies, including now our nearest neighbour Australia, have pulled out FOR GOOD REASON.  Others are facing unrest by populations that have had enough of their governments making bad decisions… 

Why can’t Jacinda look at the actual evidence? It’s incredible and unforgivable that the Labour coalition is still even considering signing this anti-the West, typical UN bureaucracy demand.

Winston is not distinguishing himself   – and he will be toast by the next election if he doesn’t disassociate New Zealand First from it.  He is already changing his tune – but instead of trying to constantly score points about National he should stop having five bob each way – because he obviously realises the implications for New Zealand… if this is one more UN Diktat inflicted on us. So it’s time for him to plainly say so.

Naturally Helen Clark backs it – one of the best reasons for our rejecting it, considering Clarke’s vision was, and probably still is for a One World government to which individual countries are supposed to yield sovereignty. Remember how she destroyed the combat wing of our Air Force – to Australia’s incredulity? Can you imagine the Australians ever allowing a leader with such an obvious agenda   to destroy a vital part of their defence force?

Why did New Zealanders wake up so late? At least, the evidence is that they are increasingly doing just this, that attitudes are changing and that the electorate is increasingly fed up with being basically ruled by leaders whose competence is more than questionable. Either that or their interests are not the same as those of the country at large. And wouldn’t that be considered subversion?

We are buying new planes with surveillance and combat capabilities. Miss Clark won’t like that? And now she is back in the country, from the Beehive come reports that she is constantly stirring the pot.

Time to let go, Helen… or just go…

This UN push is a yet another socialist/ Communist vision, and Miss Ardern looks to be a big fan of Miss Clark. She also likes to call people Comrade.

Comrade?!

We don’t need fellow-travellers running this country. The decision should be made by New Zealanders – for New Zealanders – not by left-wing political parties for a now thoroughly discredited UN – with a record of choosing the most oppressive countries in the world to head the Human Rights Organisations. That  really says everything.

As for heading off to Morocco to oversee the signing of something whose meaning is perfectly clear,  reading the text    – we’re  all tired of expensive jaunts for which we all pay – while the political class  burn up carbon credits  jetting here and there,  inventing more and more fuel and other  taxes for the rest of us.

Haven’t we all had enough?

© Amy Brooke – http://www.100days.co.nz

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!