Post by Kiwi Frontline on Oct 6, 2016 6:53:48 GMT 12
Northland Age 6/10/16
EQUAL RIGHTS HOBSON'S CHOICE
Amazingly, the Hobson Pledge group has prised most of the race-bleating appeasers, treatyists, and revisionist grievers out of the woodwork, accompanied by the usual ranting, raving, frothing at the mouth and wringing of the hands, screaming about racists.
This of course is their bog standard response when they cannot win an argument based on fact, history logic or even common sense. Hobson's `one people' statement simply reinforced what the legitimate Maori version of the Treaty said in three simple Articles:
* Sovereignty ceded.
* Property rights of all new Zealanders guaranteed and
* Granting all rights and privileges of British subjects.
A benign document everyone could live with. Any way, it is just an historic relic now.
One thing is certain, no mention of partnerships, principles or special race-based treatment. Current `Maori' vested interests are not a special case, because there is really no Maori race (if that view is wrong, provide the whakapapa and details showing bloodlines of 50 per cent or more), with most of the bleating often coming from those with infinitesimal 'Maori' bloodlines.
Labour party nitwits Messrs Little, Robertson and Davis have joined in the fray, so it is interesting to recall what Labour's 2014 election position was (no referendums, simply their way or the highway).Viz, Labour will:
* Legislate to recognise Maori as first/ indigenous peoples of New Zealand. Continue to explore the means of protecting the status of the Treaty (bogus English version) and enshrining it within our constitutional framework.
* Ensure as a principle the equity of funding for Maori providers across the entire public sector on all service contracts.
* Compel local government to review the provisions for unelected race-based Maori representation.
* Retain race-based 'Maori' parliamentary seats until 'Maori' decide otherwise.
Maori are not indigenous, yet Labour is proposing special/preferential race-based treatment and if you think Labour `Maori' policies are ruinous, go check out the Greens' absurd aberrations.
So does anyone think those jesters who are installed by a race-based preference system would want that to change? Not a chance, as they are more than happy with a system of reverse racism protecting their little patches.
The National Party bucket list stated 'race-based' parliamentary seats would be abolished, but they have now resiled from that position See Taranaki Settlement Bill 2016.
Sadly, those who are given whatever they demand rapidly develop a sense of entitlement, quickly losing all sense of proportion and objectivity. If proposing equal rights for all Kiwis is racist, then I'll be a monkey's uncle!
R P
Matapihi
BURYING THE TRUTH
Re Nation, TV 3 Sunday October 2 Larissa Wall makes comment that Maori are indigenous to New Zealand. This cannot be proven with facts.
DNA testing, carbon dating and archaeological evidence prove three or four cultures were here prior to Polynesian Maori arrival 700 years ago. What happened to the Patupaiairehei (ancient surveyors)? Who drove Ngati Hotu, the red-headed, blue-eyed people to the brink of extinction? These people's DNA goes back 1800 years out of Persia. Who annihilated the Turehu peoples? And then there is the innocent Waitaha and the peaceable Moriories.
They all pre-dated Maori arrival in New Zealand. Maui arrived from Egypt in 231 BC.
Why does a so-called 'free' country have 110 archaeological sites embargoed? Much evidence of New Zealand's blood-thirsty history pre European arrival is being systematically destroyed by persons who have an agenda to bury the truth and gain Maori sovereignty.
M J A
Pyes Pa
The Press 6/10/16
IT’S GOOD FOR SOME
Nice to see Ngai Tahu have made such a large profit (Oct 4).
Being one of the biggest organisations in New Zealand, that has had so much given to them, it is a pity they cannot be like other good corporate citizens and pay their share of taxes.
I E
Darfield
NZ Herald 6/10/16
LAND WARS HOLIDAY
A public holiday for New Zealand’s Land Wars makes sense, perhaps exchanging it for the Queen’s Birthday Holiday. It would be great if alongside it there were education programmes around the Land Wars, including the inter-Maori tribal land invasion wars, which are also an important part of our history. The New Zealand Land Wars started long before the Europeans arrived, let’s not forget.
I M,
Stratford.
INSTITUTIONAL RACISM
Dame Tariana Turia is off the mark in her claims concerning institutional racism against Maori.
Pepi-pod funding had nothing to do with racism. It was based on a decision to not encourage a harmful and dangerous parenting choice, “co-sleeping”. Maori desperately need leaders like Ngata and Duff who are not afraid to encourage their people to embrace the reality of our modern multicultural society, not those who continually make excuses for poor choices and behaviour.
M M
Bay of Plenty Times 6/10/16
HOBSON’S PLEDGE
I have never read what, in my opinion, was such a load of crock as Tommy Kapai’s column in relation to Don Brash’s Hobson’s Pledge (Opinion, October 3).
The subject of Hobson’s Pledge is one New Zealand for all.
Instead, Kapai referred to hangi, music awards, old white money, a colour-blind society, chestnuts and stolen land, which we all hear endlessly.
Not once did he refer to equal opportunities for all, regardless of race and colour, which is what Hobson’s Pledge is about.
Kindly deal with only the real issues raised in Hobson’s Pledge when referencing it, which will then hopefully stop this massive divide which has developed in New Zealand, end the “blame game” and end the massive amounts being paid to some but not others, based entirely on ancestry and ethnicity. (Abridged)
J H
Tauranga
Hawke's Bay Today 6/10/16
UNITING TREATY
With the greatest respect, the muddlements of the Maori King and the New Plymouth mayor Andrew Judd are shared in the fullest measure by Lindsay Gordon Paku, QSM.
My original letter stated that there was nothing in the Treaty of Waitangi that spoke about separate sovereignties, partnerships . . . nothing. It spoke of oneness before one law, the foundation stone of a unitary democratic state, whatever its imperfections in practice. One citizenship, with all the protections and rights of British citizenship, from whence we have derived modern law and honours such as the QSMs, Queen’s Service Medals, one of which Mr Paku has accepted.
Of the great Maori scholars from 1890s Te Aute College . . . one of whom rose to be acting prime minister in WWI . . . whose childhood understandings they would have learned from living tribal signatories to the Treaty, none saw the Treaty as other than a uniting document for all New Zealanders, or people of Aotearoa if you like . . . a unitary word not created until 1900. Quite clearly the one law and the equality of all before it was what Sir Apirama Ngata regarded as the cornerstone of this one nation. So do I.
There is so much in Mr Paku’s letter that is so wrong it levitates into fantasy. There was never any intention ‘to sign a treaty with Maori without Royal consent . . . ’ much less to beat the French with any French treaty. The French would have arrived with the Tricolour, marines, and guillotine, Mr Paku. There would be no ‘Treaty Settlements’ taking place today ‘ . . . a British Governor arrived with a treaty that was meant for Australia . . . ’ No, no and no. A naval captain, Hobson, arrived with a mandate to offer a treaty to Maori that many tribes wanted.
‘Britain would protect the Maori . . . and that they would become one people with us, not the other way around.’ Surely oneness is oneness; what other way around is there?
Misunderstandings entangle with error so much that answering all points would be impossible here.
The Treaty of Waitangi and its theme of oneness is all we have, and nothing in it supports separate development under different laws. Read it! If we don’t like this basic fact, then all we are left with is the simple Right of Conquest as was practised elsewhere.
I do not think Mr Paku would find this at all to his liking.
A R
Napier
The Northern Advocate
POLITICAL GRAFT
A recent article in a newspaper berated Winston Peters for the use of the word “apartheid”, pertaining to the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill. I don’t recall the article writer having anything to say when Tariana Turia, and another Waitangi Tribunal member, mentioned a holocaust in parliament. Perhaps I missed it.
Julius Caesar ruled the ancient Romans with his "divide and rule" policy, and our present Government is using the same tactics to good effect.
That there was a holocaust there is little doubt. It was committed by the Waikato Maori who slaughtered one third of the Taranaki Maori, took one third as prisoners, and the re-maining third fled to Wellington, where they embarked on a ship to the Chathams, and slaughtered the Moriori, rendering their population from about 1200 down to 105, and leaving Taranaki virtually empty.
Why does the Government want to pay out to the Taranaki Maori when there were none left? Because it is PC, Political Corruption — it is what keeps them in power. What about paying out the Patupaiarehe and Waitaha, who were here long before Maori, their populations decimated by the later arrivals, and who are being paid out handsomely — in some cases time and time again?
KEVAN G MARKS
Kaipara
EQUAL RIGHTS HOBSON'S CHOICE
Amazingly, the Hobson Pledge group has prised most of the race-bleating appeasers, treatyists, and revisionist grievers out of the woodwork, accompanied by the usual ranting, raving, frothing at the mouth and wringing of the hands, screaming about racists.
This of course is their bog standard response when they cannot win an argument based on fact, history logic or even common sense. Hobson's `one people' statement simply reinforced what the legitimate Maori version of the Treaty said in three simple Articles:
* Sovereignty ceded.
* Property rights of all new Zealanders guaranteed and
* Granting all rights and privileges of British subjects.
A benign document everyone could live with. Any way, it is just an historic relic now.
One thing is certain, no mention of partnerships, principles or special race-based treatment. Current `Maori' vested interests are not a special case, because there is really no Maori race (if that view is wrong, provide the whakapapa and details showing bloodlines of 50 per cent or more), with most of the bleating often coming from those with infinitesimal 'Maori' bloodlines.
Labour party nitwits Messrs Little, Robertson and Davis have joined in the fray, so it is interesting to recall what Labour's 2014 election position was (no referendums, simply their way or the highway).Viz, Labour will:
* Legislate to recognise Maori as first/ indigenous peoples of New Zealand. Continue to explore the means of protecting the status of the Treaty (bogus English version) and enshrining it within our constitutional framework.
* Ensure as a principle the equity of funding for Maori providers across the entire public sector on all service contracts.
* Compel local government to review the provisions for unelected race-based Maori representation.
* Retain race-based 'Maori' parliamentary seats until 'Maori' decide otherwise.
Maori are not indigenous, yet Labour is proposing special/preferential race-based treatment and if you think Labour `Maori' policies are ruinous, go check out the Greens' absurd aberrations.
So does anyone think those jesters who are installed by a race-based preference system would want that to change? Not a chance, as they are more than happy with a system of reverse racism protecting their little patches.
The National Party bucket list stated 'race-based' parliamentary seats would be abolished, but they have now resiled from that position See Taranaki Settlement Bill 2016.
Sadly, those who are given whatever they demand rapidly develop a sense of entitlement, quickly losing all sense of proportion and objectivity. If proposing equal rights for all Kiwis is racist, then I'll be a monkey's uncle!
R P
Matapihi
BURYING THE TRUTH
Re Nation, TV 3 Sunday October 2 Larissa Wall makes comment that Maori are indigenous to New Zealand. This cannot be proven with facts.
DNA testing, carbon dating and archaeological evidence prove three or four cultures were here prior to Polynesian Maori arrival 700 years ago. What happened to the Patupaiairehei (ancient surveyors)? Who drove Ngati Hotu, the red-headed, blue-eyed people to the brink of extinction? These people's DNA goes back 1800 years out of Persia. Who annihilated the Turehu peoples? And then there is the innocent Waitaha and the peaceable Moriories.
They all pre-dated Maori arrival in New Zealand. Maui arrived from Egypt in 231 BC.
Why does a so-called 'free' country have 110 archaeological sites embargoed? Much evidence of New Zealand's blood-thirsty history pre European arrival is being systematically destroyed by persons who have an agenda to bury the truth and gain Maori sovereignty.
M J A
Pyes Pa
The Press 6/10/16
IT’S GOOD FOR SOME
Nice to see Ngai Tahu have made such a large profit (Oct 4).
Being one of the biggest organisations in New Zealand, that has had so much given to them, it is a pity they cannot be like other good corporate citizens and pay their share of taxes.
I E
Darfield
NZ Herald 6/10/16
LAND WARS HOLIDAY
A public holiday for New Zealand’s Land Wars makes sense, perhaps exchanging it for the Queen’s Birthday Holiday. It would be great if alongside it there were education programmes around the Land Wars, including the inter-Maori tribal land invasion wars, which are also an important part of our history. The New Zealand Land Wars started long before the Europeans arrived, let’s not forget.
I M,
Stratford.
INSTITUTIONAL RACISM
Dame Tariana Turia is off the mark in her claims concerning institutional racism against Maori.
Pepi-pod funding had nothing to do with racism. It was based on a decision to not encourage a harmful and dangerous parenting choice, “co-sleeping”. Maori desperately need leaders like Ngata and Duff who are not afraid to encourage their people to embrace the reality of our modern multicultural society, not those who continually make excuses for poor choices and behaviour.
M M
Bay of Plenty Times 6/10/16
HOBSON’S PLEDGE
I have never read what, in my opinion, was such a load of crock as Tommy Kapai’s column in relation to Don Brash’s Hobson’s Pledge (Opinion, October 3).
The subject of Hobson’s Pledge is one New Zealand for all.
Instead, Kapai referred to hangi, music awards, old white money, a colour-blind society, chestnuts and stolen land, which we all hear endlessly.
Not once did he refer to equal opportunities for all, regardless of race and colour, which is what Hobson’s Pledge is about.
Kindly deal with only the real issues raised in Hobson’s Pledge when referencing it, which will then hopefully stop this massive divide which has developed in New Zealand, end the “blame game” and end the massive amounts being paid to some but not others, based entirely on ancestry and ethnicity. (Abridged)
J H
Tauranga
Hawke's Bay Today 6/10/16
UNITING TREATY
With the greatest respect, the muddlements of the Maori King and the New Plymouth mayor Andrew Judd are shared in the fullest measure by Lindsay Gordon Paku, QSM.
My original letter stated that there was nothing in the Treaty of Waitangi that spoke about separate sovereignties, partnerships . . . nothing. It spoke of oneness before one law, the foundation stone of a unitary democratic state, whatever its imperfections in practice. One citizenship, with all the protections and rights of British citizenship, from whence we have derived modern law and honours such as the QSMs, Queen’s Service Medals, one of which Mr Paku has accepted.
Of the great Maori scholars from 1890s Te Aute College . . . one of whom rose to be acting prime minister in WWI . . . whose childhood understandings they would have learned from living tribal signatories to the Treaty, none saw the Treaty as other than a uniting document for all New Zealanders, or people of Aotearoa if you like . . . a unitary word not created until 1900. Quite clearly the one law and the equality of all before it was what Sir Apirama Ngata regarded as the cornerstone of this one nation. So do I.
There is so much in Mr Paku’s letter that is so wrong it levitates into fantasy. There was never any intention ‘to sign a treaty with Maori without Royal consent . . . ’ much less to beat the French with any French treaty. The French would have arrived with the Tricolour, marines, and guillotine, Mr Paku. There would be no ‘Treaty Settlements’ taking place today ‘ . . . a British Governor arrived with a treaty that was meant for Australia . . . ’ No, no and no. A naval captain, Hobson, arrived with a mandate to offer a treaty to Maori that many tribes wanted.
‘Britain would protect the Maori . . . and that they would become one people with us, not the other way around.’ Surely oneness is oneness; what other way around is there?
Misunderstandings entangle with error so much that answering all points would be impossible here.
The Treaty of Waitangi and its theme of oneness is all we have, and nothing in it supports separate development under different laws. Read it! If we don’t like this basic fact, then all we are left with is the simple Right of Conquest as was practised elsewhere.
I do not think Mr Paku would find this at all to his liking.
A R
Napier
The Northern Advocate
POLITICAL GRAFT
A recent article in a newspaper berated Winston Peters for the use of the word “apartheid”, pertaining to the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill. I don’t recall the article writer having anything to say when Tariana Turia, and another Waitangi Tribunal member, mentioned a holocaust in parliament. Perhaps I missed it.
Julius Caesar ruled the ancient Romans with his "divide and rule" policy, and our present Government is using the same tactics to good effect.
That there was a holocaust there is little doubt. It was committed by the Waikato Maori who slaughtered one third of the Taranaki Maori, took one third as prisoners, and the re-maining third fled to Wellington, where they embarked on a ship to the Chathams, and slaughtered the Moriori, rendering their population from about 1200 down to 105, and leaving Taranaki virtually empty.
Why does the Government want to pay out to the Taranaki Maori when there were none left? Because it is PC, Political Corruption — it is what keeps them in power. What about paying out the Patupaiarehe and Waitaha, who were here long before Maori, their populations decimated by the later arrivals, and who are being paid out handsomely — in some cases time and time again?
KEVAN G MARKS
Kaipara