The witch-hunt against Allan Titford?

The Witch-hunt against Allan Titford?

COPYRIGHT © KAPITI INDEPENDENT NEWS

July 24, 2018  

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

Some justice at last?

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

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

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

Questions about the Waitangi Tribunal

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

Much of this is detailed in my book –

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncovering the truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

“Disharmonious speech” ! Wake up NZ – This is shocking…

 

 “Disharmonious speech” ! Wake up NZ – This is shocking  

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings/audio/is-freedom-of-speech-under-threat/#ath

Political commentator Lindsay Perigo has told Chris Lynch he is concerned freedom of speech is under threat in New Zealand from the Human Rights Commission wanting to prevent “disharmonious speech” directed towards ethnic minority groups in New Zealand.

Yes, we are all busy, but it’s well worth taking the time to listen to this interview. It was this same highly experienced media commentator who originally raised the alarm over the “brain dead” directions of our state-sponsored television and broadcasting media.

This is now equalled by the descent of  Fairfax New Zealand  (a subsidiary of Australia’s Fairfax Media newspapers)  and New Zealand Media & Entertainment (owned by Sydney-based APN News & Media and the Australian Radio Network) into the obligingly dumbed-down, PC, daily fare dished up to this country. There never was a better time to abandon subscriptions and to support proudly independent local newspapers.

Critical analysis of what we’re being fed through the media is only too rare, which is why the Perigo interview is so very important. For there is no question that we New Zealanders are in deep trouble with now state-sponsored cultural bullying receiving useful platforms in the only-too compliant mass media.

It is also receiving support even in areas which have absolutely no business in becoming politically active – and radicalised.  The police hierarchy, for example, is now causing concern by its inappropriate intrusion into areas relating to policy-making – a move which will rightly concern many of its own rank and file.

Former Race Relations Commissioner Susan Devoy, already viewed by many as inappropriately partisan in her role, increased concern with her apparent wish to involve the police in policy decisions  – or pressuring the government to do. And now, a New Zealand Herald correspondent has pointed out that the Acting Race Relations Conciliator, Paula Tesoriero, a former New Zealand Paralympics racing cyclist, has made the mistake of attempting to equate freedom of speech with physical safety…in order to give legitimacy to restricting this freedom. This is very poor thinking from her indeed.

 This Herald correspondent commented on Tesoriero’s failure to make the distinction between words and actions – a now fashionable justification for those seeking to muzzle freedom of expression. He’s right in stating that “Legislation already protects the right to physical safety- and words are not actions.” Moreover, as he points out “The commission seeks new legislation to sanction ‘hateful and disharmonious speech targeted at the religious and beliefs of minority communities.’ Who will define these terms, he asks, and why would they apply only to speech directed at minority communities?’

Why indeed? But I think we all know the answer to this, given the now constant attack on mainstream New Zealanders, who are not being consulted by our government on what they feel as the best directions for our country.

Tesoriero has now denied that this is the case – but the evidence is against her.  The Summary of Recommendations by our far from impartial Race Relations Commission to the United Nations is worth checking out– see 2(a) and (b)  – https://www.hrc.co.nz/files/8215/0171/9491/Appendix_to_NZHRC_CERD_Submission_2017_-_Summary_of_Recommendations.pdf

Not only does it inexcusably continue to advance the quite wrong claim of a ”partnership” between Maori and the Crown, it specifically urges the government  to “Review the adequacy of current legislation in addressing and sanctioning hate speech and incitement to racial disharmony, including hateful and disharmonious speech targeted at the religion and beliefs of ethnic minority communities.”

In fact, reading this document right through leaves little doubt in the reader’s mind that it is basically a highly activist piece of work, also pressuring the government to implement the recommendations from the Waitangi Tribunal – a body which has already been not only utterly partisan, but even arguably corrupt in its modus operandi. (See page 160 in my book “The 100 Days  – Claiming Back New Zealand – what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians – “The case for abolishing the highly damaging Waitangi  Tribunal and questioning its highly dubious, activist record.”

We’ve got to the stage in this country where the European-descended majority is now basically under constant attack, with special rights and privileges directed not only at today’s part-Maori but at other ethnic minorities which can be used as a tool for this purpose. And of course, when one particular sector of the community gains special rights, special privileges, special concessions…it is always at the cost to all others.

The weasel word of diversity has become especially useful when wielded to silence criticism from New Zealanders rightly concerned that the democratic aim of equal rights for all, regardless of colour, race, gender and creed to bring people together as one – is now being deliberately undermined.

Even given this aim of equality under the law for all New Zealanders, we need to also remember the American political scientist Sam Huntingdon’s reminder about cultures in conflict. Best known for his 1993 theory, “the Clash of civilisations”-  of  a new post-Cold  War new world order – he argued that future wars would be fought not between countries, but between cultures, and that Islam extremism would become the biggest threat to world peace. Given the problems that the rise of militant Islam is now causing throughout Europe, in Britain and even close to us, in Australia, it can be argued that it would be irresponsible of our government to allow unrestricted Muslim immigration to our own country. Moreover, it would be inexcusable if even opening this relevant issue up for debate will bring accusations of “disharmonious speech” directed against concerned New Zealanders.

The summary of the Race Relation Commission’s recommendations to the United Nations should be torn up. It is basically a divisive and damaging document – and gives credence to those who argue that the commission itself should be abolished.

Susan Devoy had come to be viewed by many as naïve in her seeming lack of awareness that the United Nations is now a highly suspect organisation essentially antagonistic to the West, with a basically One World, repressive agenda aimed at bringing down democracies. Devoy did not seem to realise that her loyalty should be to New Zealanders at large – not to this leftist organisation whose destructive diktats should be opposed – not endorsed.  The question that should be asked is – who authorised her policy stands there on our behalf?

The situation is getting worse, not better, with this new move to threaten or criminalise New Zealanders by proposed new legislation ridiculously described as “disharmonious speech”. Common sense alone, which today seems extraordinarily lacking among government appointees, points to the fact that a horse and cart, metaphorically speaking, can be driven through this definition. And all the puffery now forthcoming – to hastily assure us that such legislation would only be invoked in extreme cases – should be treated with the derision it deserves.  Bad laws are bad laws – and what is proposed is very bad law indeed. 

It is in essence nothing other than a giant step towards the overwhelmingly repressive legislation with which those unfortunate enough  to live in the former USSR, in Nazi Germany, in North Korea today – or in any other  oppressive dictatorships  – were, and are, only too familiar. 

The hour is now very late for New Zealanders to wake up – or we are going to lose this country.  We all know that the tentacles of the State are reaching more and more over us all, not only with all the increasing compliance edicts and petty regulations,  but with the utterly inappropriate ethnic superiority, anti-Christian, anti-European onslaught that has targeted all our institutions. The universities, the teacher training facilities, the nursing and medical curricula –  and, among the most pernicious, the Ministry of Education, imposing its costly and radicalised agenda on our schools  in a blatant power grab for the minds of  our children – are all now contributing. 

 The ominous and loaded phrase “hate speech” was bad enough. But now, under a basically socialist government, and an agenda-driven Prime Minister who likes to use the word “Comrades” – while well aware of its Communist cloaking – we are heading and more and more towards the reality of a police state. 

A recent excellent article in the Spectator Australia by political science student Tom Grein should be compulsory reading for all our naive and incompetent politicians. It is the latter, whose knuckling under to the bullying of the Marxist cultural movement white-anting our society (in the name of ethnic diversity), who are costing us so dearly. It is our politicians  who constantly inflict on the country, without New Zealanders’ consent, the flawed, ill-thought legislation with which we have become only too familiar. 

Noting that we have lost our way, Grein states,” I’m talking of course about the unfettered ability of the individual to express their (sic) opinion without fear of violence or intimidation, otherwise known as free speech…

“I propose this is an open question to those that demand speech codes. 

  “Quo warranto? The oldest question in the book asks, By what right do you have to decide what I can and cannot hear?

“A de facto Islamic blasphemy law is already in place – everyone knows full well what the consequences of caricaturing ‘the prophet’ are. The Rushdie affair and the Danish cartoons Charlie Hebdo… You had your own protests in this fine city of Sydney a few years back which saw young Muslims carrying signs saying ‘Behead all those who insult the Prophet’. If you had told me before I read up on these problems that people were being killed in Western nations for caricaturing a prophet, I would have asked ‘When did the Inquisition return?  These sickly developments are a threat not only to free speech, but to everything we can sensibly call civilisation, and   must be meet head-on… 

“ It pained me to read about the attempted prohibition of the Catholic Union at Balliol College, Oxford…This specific targeting of Christians has become an all too common theme on university campuses as we saw a few months back with the harassment of students on this campus,  the University of Sydney,  over their opposition to same-sex marriage…Such incidents  represent the pointy end of a ‘progressive’ culture that has swept through the institutions of Australian society over the past decade or so,  which seeks to make redundant the history of this nation and reshape it along a revisionist ideology of guilt, shame, and self-flagellation”.   

New Zealanders will recognise exactly the same sort of reinvention of our history, the deliberate encouragement of a culture of special “entitlement” for some.  The agenda underpinning this here is just as dangerous and as corrupt.  

Grein concludes, with an unusual source as a recommendation. “I offer this challenge as a pragmatic way forward {that]  – we return to first principles in understanding the necessity of free speech… I suggest the letters of Rosa Luxemburg who most eloquently wrote, ‘Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.’  

“From this position we must inculcate a culture that understands the significance of free speech and its place as the bedrock which all other freedoms lie upon…” 

He concludes with Oscar Wilde’s reminder that ‘He who does not think for himself does not think at all.’ 

To have a police force in the position of laying charges against individuals brave enough to challenge the damaging, politically correct orthodoxies of the day would be unacceptable –  incredible and  utterly dismaying to those New Zealanders who fought for our democratic freedoms. 

 If we do not correspondingly fight, we will not just have let them down – we will have lost our country. 

*

© Amy Brooke, Convenor, The 100 Days.  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.

 

 

 

Putting up with a John Key or a Helen Clark? The Swiss wouldn’t

Putting up with a John Key or a Helen Clark? The Swiss wouldn’t. We need the 100 Days stop on our own politicians.

The recent railing of the otherwise often excellent Spectator columnist Rod Liddle  against the public being graciously “allowed” to contribute towards the decision-making facing the UK was out of character. It seems to have been inspired by his objection to the British at last having the chance to tell the basically fascist European Union to butt out of dominating their once much freer country. However, former London Mayor Boris Johnson -(together with UKIP’s Nigel Farage and some high-ranking Conservatives) -is turning on Prime Minister David Cameron, expressing concern felt nationwide by the people of this once proudly independent country. http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/669468/Boris-Johnson-David-Cameron-immigration-Brexit-Vote-Leave-EU-referendum

Few would discount the fact that uncontrolled immigration is threatening Britain. Moreover, the cost of propping up an organisation run by power-hungry bureaucrats, attempting more and more to remove the independence of the countries within its grip, is quite extraordinary. The actual cost to Britain of propping up the EU is estimated to be just under £250 million a week. Thanks to Margaret Thatcher, who negotiated a rebate, this is $100 million less than it would otherwise be paying. http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/669690/EU-referendum-row-David-Cameron-Nigel-Farage-ITV-debate-Vote-Leave-Boris-Johnson

So, two cheers for those from the Tory hierarchy rebelling against the independence of the UK’s economic, political and judicial decision-making being held in straitjackets by the EU’s unelected and petty bureaucracy, infamous for its sea of petty restrictions and regulations. (Among the better known is European Commission Regulation Number 1677/88.  “Class 1” and “Extra class” cucumbers are allowed a bend of 10 mm per 10 cm of length.  “Class II” cucumbers can bend twice as much. Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold.”)

But only two cheers, because disgracefully, as so often happens when the power groups band together, the Conservative MPs from the “Leave EU” movement have  been doing their best  to exclude the one man who led the move to ask the British to speak up for themselves as a people. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36273499  There is no doubt of the debt owed to Nigel Farage with his courageous challenging of the Establishment. And the mean-mindedness of attempts to exclude the man who is owed most should bring home to us the lesson of the corruption of power. Moreover, as we well know, NZ’s power groups also band together.

While it is heartening to see happening in the UK what is well overdue to still come in this country – a revolt among right-wing politicians taking on our now own widely distrusted leader  – in other words, standing up to be counted on important issues of the day – we should be asking why we never see this happening in New Zealand. Why does the bunch of yes-men-women who fall into line behind John Key (described by commentator Matthew Hooton as a “serial bullshitter”)  never stand up to represent their own constituents – and the whole country?  Why no opposition from any at all of the members of a National Party  – which once represented the freedom of the individual, rather than state control – against a lightweight, narcissistic PM who is not regarded as prioritising the interests of New Zealanders over those of the money-men with their eye on this country?

Rod Liddle’s article, with its silly title “Whoever invented the referendum deserves a kicking” is challenged by correspondents, including those below.

“Maic: In the matter of referendums I believe that the Swiss have got it right. I’m a little weary of the patronising comments from some self appointed experts that would have you believe that the peasants (that’s us) are too stupid or indifferent to be able to make rational choices affecting the governance of their country.

“The left in particular seem to regard Direct Democracy with horror. They claim to represent the people, to have the support of the people, but shy away from letting the people make some decisions on social and political matters.

“Interestingly enough, you hear loud comments on how the country has a really great progressive education system. One would have thought that the graduates of such a good system would have the intelligence and judgment to at least have an influence on how the country is governed.

“My own country (New Zealand) has only one House of Representatives purportedly representing the citizens, but seemingly more focused on advancing the interests and survival of the major political parties. Deals are done to consolidate power.

“Policies never put to the people are nevertheless imposed on them.
The cry goes up that many citizens are not interested or engaged in politics and that the level of voting when we do have elections is not that great.
Well, why should anyone be surprised?

“I say it is possible to enact a system of Direct Democracy which makes politicians more accountable and at the same time prevents frivolous attempts to undermine the system.”

It’s a pity that this correspondent, making some good points, does not seem to know that our 100 Days – Claiming Back – New Zealand movement is already well underway to produce just this  – what the Swiss got right  – as he notes. Their great achievement was to insist that a stop for a period of 100 Days was put on all legislation passed by their parliament, during which period of time the country can assess what is happening. This simple, but brilliant, provision enables the Swiss people themselves to control their politicians. It also prevents the kind of legislation deliberately pushed through late at night in this country – on the eve of public holidays such as Easter or Christmas – in the hope New Zealanders will be too busy to object.

Of all the reforms the Swiss undertook to achieve a genuine democracy, this one was the most crucial. Their government understands this, and refers to the people as “sovereign.” Members of their Cabinet of only seven members!  (in a country with a population double ours) simply take a turn for a year at being President, before stepping down. For very good reason, as we have learned to appreciate, the Swiss would simply not put up with a John Key or a Helen Clark constantly, and for a period of several years, digging in to dominate the decision-making that affects all New Zealanders.

The contrast between this highly successful country, whose own MPs hold down day jobs (attending parliament only one day a week) and our cash-strapped economy with our government continually passing new legislation – and taking good care to exclude New Zealanders from behind-the-scenes decision-making – such as ill-thought asset sales, and the signing of the TPPA (without consultation with the country) – would scandalise the Swiss. They must wonder why we put up with it.  Why do we?

Another Spectator commentator, also disagreeing with Liddle, expresses the hope “for NZ…that the anti-establishment wave sweeping the Western world will boost new parties like NZF into power”.

There is no doubt about the power of individuals, when they have had enough, standing up to the power-groups of the politicians, the bankers, the bureaucrats – and the overpaid CEOs of the corporate world.

 GK Chesterton’s belief that – “All men are ordinary men; the extraordinary men are those who know it” – should help us to stop short, and think.

 It brings home to us that fact that our political hierarchy in this country, which apparently fancies itself far more qualified, better informed, even (heaven forbid) more intelligent than the people of New Zealand, is well overdue to be reformed. The secret of Donald Trump’s success in the US is widely recognised as the anger of “the ordinary people” against their well-funded and well-entrenched political establishment.

There are obvious lessons for us here. We are overdue to make our own stand against the right-to-rule assumption of whatever political party currently governs the country. None of them can be trusted, although there is no doubt that one, New Zealand First, has constantly repudiated the racist directions in which our country is now heading – with now preferential “rights” disgracefully based on a watered-down ethnicity. NZFirst pledges to not pass any non-mandated legislation without consulting the country.

It’s a first step – but not enough. What we need to be aiming for is to embed the 100 Days requirement in legislation so that this country can begin to work again towards its full potential, and so that New Zealanders themselves, not our political bureaucracy, will be able, like the clever Swiss, to make the decisions that count.

 This is undeniably an idea whose time has come. See www.100days.co.nz  All it needs is for you to help. We need you.

Quite simply, it’s just up to us. So why would we let New Zealand and its future down? 

From Chesterton again, “Everyone on the earth should believe that he has something to give to the world which otherwise cannot be given.”

*

*Our 100 Days movement needs individuals to contribute what they can – no donation is too small   – to help send our message right around the country. Will you?

We can count on no funding to assist coming from political or moneyed power groups with their own vested interests. But we can be proud of this!

Do visit us to see how you can help – www.100days.co.nz and SHARE on Facebook  https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

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