Post by Kiwi Frontline on Nov 30, 2017 5:51:19 GMT 12
Waikato Times 30/11/17
SIR WILLIAM
The average lethargic Kiwi should be grateful to Sir Bill Gallagher and his speech to the Waikato Institute of Directors as reported in the press. A little research can quickly verify his claims.
At last the media has seen fit to publish his claims, claims that echo the concerns of a multitude of New Zealanders relating to the Treaty and the successive governments’ revisions that have seen rather dubious interpretations enshrined in law. Alterations to national statutes, regulations and legislation including the Treaty have seen Maori, 15% of our population, gain inordinate powers.
Sir Bill voiced concerns that the media have been reluctant to publish previously.
Historically validated articles of these contentious issues and letters contesting ethnically contrived amendments have been ignored.
BRYAN JOHNSON, Omokoroa
SIR WILLIAM 3
What an appalling headline you produced in the Waikato Times, November 28 (‘‘Gallagher’s views ‘privileged and sad’ ’’). The Gallagher family must be the greatest benefactors in our great city. They have also provided employment for thousands of people and kept their head office and production plant in our city when they could have been relocated to almost anywhere in the world.
It is the Times that is sad using its privileged position as the local major newspaper to expose a jealousy that is unwarranted. I do not think anyone in Hamilton would believe that Sir William is privileged as the Gallagher family have worked hard to create an international empire and have at all times remained true to the city. We are all privileged to have them as part of our community.
There are many people in the community who feel the Treaty of Waitangi has been misinterpreted and is a rort, but we are not supposed to question it.
The science about climate change is far from settled and most of the political rhetoric promoted by the Greens and the others that promotes CO2 as evil seem to have limited knowledge of science.
Sir William has perhaps expressed in his speech the thoughts of many people in NZ who are never given a forum to pass public comment.
And do not forget that the charities supported by the Gallagher family do not discriminate on class, ethnicity or age.
The Waikato Times needs to publicly apologise to Sir William and the Gallagher family for its overzealous reporting.
JIM FINDLAY, Hamilton
SIR WILLIAM 4
Well done, Waikato Times, for printing Sir William Gallagher’s common sense views on climate change.
Having seen tropical fern fossils in Antarctica, and seashells in the middle of the Arizona desert, it is clear that climate change exists and is a part of time and nature. Get used to it.
Let’s have a ‘‘Common Sense’’ political party, the only requirements for membership being a desire to tell the truth, and not be an academic with no life experience trying to publish a thesis, or make a living out of scaring people to death. After all, a majority vote is no longer required to obtain a position of power – it should be quite easy. Its manifesto will be to accept, adjust and prepare for the inevitability of climate change. That would be helpful.
It is pure arrogance to think mankind can seriously affect the global climate. Sir William is right about volcanoes, never mind other natural phenomena.
In the meantime, let’s turn the electricity off for a few days and get back to ‘‘thinking’’ without the internet. I’m sure the Greens would not object.
WENDY BOOTH, Hamilton
SIR WILLIAM 5
Sir William Gallagher, well done and thank you for having the courage to speak out on the Treaty of Waitangi rorting at the Waikato business leaders function last Friday evening.
I strongly support and endorse what he had to say. The only legitimate Treaty is the Maori version known as Te Tiriti o Waitangi, indisputably translated into Maori from what has become known as the Littlewood English draft – they cross translate virtually word for word. The Maori treaty was a benign simple document, the terms of which we could all live with.
Sir William has correctly assessed the situation and has at least taken the time and trouble to research the subject. I know that other notables feel much the same as he does and they need to speak out and to stand up for what is right and be counted.
Many politicians (local and national), jurists, government bureaucrats (local and national), various academics, pseudo historians, education leaders, the media and PC Brigade who have driven this lunacy all need to be held to account for the incalculable (possibly irreversible) damage they have done and continue to do to this country.
Kiwis need eminent people like Sir William to speak up.
ROB PATERSON, Matapihi
SIR WILLIAM 6
I totally agree with Sir Bill Gallagher re the Treaty of Waitangi.
Huge wealth has been awarded for far too long to the Treaty, now 150 [sic] years old. With all their wealth, they have not been able to house their people or motivate them to work and get off the dole or out of the courts.
So where is all the money directed to? That is so sad. Talk to Maori and they say it does not get down to their struggling people.
P MORRIS, Hamilton
SIR WILLIAM 7
The vehemence of the protestations against Sir William Gallagher’s objective comments on the validity of the Treaty process is a powerful indicator of the credence of his observations. Strident and extreme verbiage is the standard tool of the precious left when they are confronted with irrefutable truths.
GRAHAM STEENSON, Whakatane
SIR WILLIAM 8
It looks like Sir William is taking a verbal scourging from some quarters, for offering his opinion on two ‘‘sacred cows’’ – the Treaty and global weather changes, ie, global warming.
It appears that the print media at least is defending his right to publish his opinions on that sound basis, ‘‘We might not agree with what he says, but we will defend unto death his right to say it.’’
Forcing the Treaty upon all Kiwis as a pseudo-religion, a sacred cow, and an unchallengeable dictate was never going to win the hearts and minds of people who are still mingling from many racial and theosophical backgrounds, in that ‘‘melting pot’’ that will eventually define all Kiwis as equal, was never a sound basis for producing that singularity demographic, ie, the true Kiwi.
Thus, Sir William is likely to face having his opinions on global warming discredited, while there will be a lot of support for his opinions regarding, the Treaty. His opponents regarding his opinions on our founding document, and the differing status of those who believe in it as such, risk their own share of ridicule if they simply trot out the omnipotent argument of racism.
DENNIS PENNEFATHER, Te Awamutu
SIR WILLIAM 9
Sir William Gallagher’s speech rightly highlights the divisiveness of granting special rights for Maori. I’m sure the offended will use the go-to words of outraged and racist to endeavour to shut the discussion down.
Maori culture and superstitions are given special recognition and rights in legislation such as the Resource Management Act, Local Bodies Act, the Marine and Coastal Areas Act, etc. No recognition is accorded to Pakeha culture and Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Article 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi grants equality of citizenship but special recognition is not equality. To give the Maori world view a status superior to anyone else’s world view is a denial of the democratic principle of democracy as a form of government in which all eligible citizens are able to participate equally.
Equality used to be just that; equality. Treating everyone equally, alike.
These days it is not that at all. Equality now means discrimination disguised as ideals; it means preferential treatment for special interest groups especially Maori. Promoters of these ideas are not interested in equality but rather recognition of inequality.
No person should be disadvantaged for having a different skin colour, nor should any person be advantaged for exactly the same reason.
RICHARD PRINCE, Tauranga
Otago Daily Times 30/11/17
EXPRESSION WITHOUT FEAR
I WOULD like to congratulate Dave Witherow. Not so much on what he wrote, although that is worthy of debate, but more for the fact that he has made good use of a most valuable freedom that we have — the freedom to express ourselves without fear of imprisonment, or worse.
Where is the value of this if all we use it for is to express that which is acceptable to society or governments.
I don’t agree with all that he wrote, but I would most certainly defend his right to express his opinions.
KEN SPALL, Mosgiel
MORAL indignation oozed from Lydia Anderson’s response to Dave Witherow’s ‘‘racism’’ (ODT, 28.11.17). Methinks she has had minimal contact with urban Maori in state or rented houses whose major concern is paying bills and feeding their families.
Presumably, Ms Anderson’s ‘‘overwhelming majority’’ in support were listeners to a radio station or social media contacts?
A far bigger majority (and not just old ‘‘white men’’) support Mr Witherow’s views. In 1994, I had a task force green job at a popular school in Palmerston North with a 5050 urban country student roll. Form I and II pupils had a choice of learning Maori, French, German, Mandarin or Japanese. None chose Maori.
I. WILLIAMS, Dunedin
Bay of Plenty Times 29/11/17
HISTORY REPEATS
Those who don’t know history are condemned to repeat it.
Obviously, the majority of the councillors at Western Bay District Council do not know their history by voting for Maori wards on Tuesday.
Dieu et mon droit, God and my right, or religion and inheritance, was the world order several centuries ago.
Humankind took a great leap forward in just about every way when one person, one vote became the governance of choice.
Those earlier times were not called the Dark Ages for nothing.
Introducing tribal-based unelected appointees to the council membership is in no way democratic.
Tribalism and racism are two sides of the same coin and must be rejected as a governance model.
Let us hope that a poll of ratepayers does the right thing here.
G FAULKNER, Tauranga
Dominion Post 29/11/17
IRISH INSTRUCTION
Last week, Dame Susan Devoy, in an open response to an opinion piece in a newspaper about the use of te reo Maori, referred to the complainant's country of birth, Ireland. She is reported to have said that Irish Gaelic was a compulsory subject in all public schools, and that study at an Irish university required proficiency in Irish Gaelic.
The former is true, as Irish was given equal status with English in 1922, though the curriculum is still predominantly in English. I would assure anyone thinking of studying in Ireland that it is NOT a prerequisite of Irish universities: they require only proficiency in English.
One hopes that Dame Susan was misquoted: given her role, her statements need to be accurate.
After three generations of compulsory Irish in primary and secondary schooling one might expect more than the current three per cent who claim it as their first language. The Irish Government has indeed proclaimed Irish the official first language, but their target of 250,000 first-language speakers by 2030 (about five per cent of the likely population) says it all.
There is a suggestion that the "official" version in schools (agreed only in the 1950s) is growing away from that of traditional far-west Irish-speaking communities, and becoming a middle-class urban practice. The situation is far from straightforward.
ALAN WHITE Trentham
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers
SIR WILLIAM
The average lethargic Kiwi should be grateful to Sir Bill Gallagher and his speech to the Waikato Institute of Directors as reported in the press. A little research can quickly verify his claims.
At last the media has seen fit to publish his claims, claims that echo the concerns of a multitude of New Zealanders relating to the Treaty and the successive governments’ revisions that have seen rather dubious interpretations enshrined in law. Alterations to national statutes, regulations and legislation including the Treaty have seen Maori, 15% of our population, gain inordinate powers.
Sir Bill voiced concerns that the media have been reluctant to publish previously.
Historically validated articles of these contentious issues and letters contesting ethnically contrived amendments have been ignored.
BRYAN JOHNSON, Omokoroa
SIR WILLIAM 3
What an appalling headline you produced in the Waikato Times, November 28 (‘‘Gallagher’s views ‘privileged and sad’ ’’). The Gallagher family must be the greatest benefactors in our great city. They have also provided employment for thousands of people and kept their head office and production plant in our city when they could have been relocated to almost anywhere in the world.
It is the Times that is sad using its privileged position as the local major newspaper to expose a jealousy that is unwarranted. I do not think anyone in Hamilton would believe that Sir William is privileged as the Gallagher family have worked hard to create an international empire and have at all times remained true to the city. We are all privileged to have them as part of our community.
There are many people in the community who feel the Treaty of Waitangi has been misinterpreted and is a rort, but we are not supposed to question it.
The science about climate change is far from settled and most of the political rhetoric promoted by the Greens and the others that promotes CO2 as evil seem to have limited knowledge of science.
Sir William has perhaps expressed in his speech the thoughts of many people in NZ who are never given a forum to pass public comment.
And do not forget that the charities supported by the Gallagher family do not discriminate on class, ethnicity or age.
The Waikato Times needs to publicly apologise to Sir William and the Gallagher family for its overzealous reporting.
JIM FINDLAY, Hamilton
SIR WILLIAM 4
Well done, Waikato Times, for printing Sir William Gallagher’s common sense views on climate change.
Having seen tropical fern fossils in Antarctica, and seashells in the middle of the Arizona desert, it is clear that climate change exists and is a part of time and nature. Get used to it.
Let’s have a ‘‘Common Sense’’ political party, the only requirements for membership being a desire to tell the truth, and not be an academic with no life experience trying to publish a thesis, or make a living out of scaring people to death. After all, a majority vote is no longer required to obtain a position of power – it should be quite easy. Its manifesto will be to accept, adjust and prepare for the inevitability of climate change. That would be helpful.
It is pure arrogance to think mankind can seriously affect the global climate. Sir William is right about volcanoes, never mind other natural phenomena.
In the meantime, let’s turn the electricity off for a few days and get back to ‘‘thinking’’ without the internet. I’m sure the Greens would not object.
WENDY BOOTH, Hamilton
SIR WILLIAM 5
Sir William Gallagher, well done and thank you for having the courage to speak out on the Treaty of Waitangi rorting at the Waikato business leaders function last Friday evening.
I strongly support and endorse what he had to say. The only legitimate Treaty is the Maori version known as Te Tiriti o Waitangi, indisputably translated into Maori from what has become known as the Littlewood English draft – they cross translate virtually word for word. The Maori treaty was a benign simple document, the terms of which we could all live with.
Sir William has correctly assessed the situation and has at least taken the time and trouble to research the subject. I know that other notables feel much the same as he does and they need to speak out and to stand up for what is right and be counted.
Many politicians (local and national), jurists, government bureaucrats (local and national), various academics, pseudo historians, education leaders, the media and PC Brigade who have driven this lunacy all need to be held to account for the incalculable (possibly irreversible) damage they have done and continue to do to this country.
Kiwis need eminent people like Sir William to speak up.
ROB PATERSON, Matapihi
SIR WILLIAM 6
I totally agree with Sir Bill Gallagher re the Treaty of Waitangi.
Huge wealth has been awarded for far too long to the Treaty, now 150 [sic] years old. With all their wealth, they have not been able to house their people or motivate them to work and get off the dole or out of the courts.
So where is all the money directed to? That is so sad. Talk to Maori and they say it does not get down to their struggling people.
P MORRIS, Hamilton
SIR WILLIAM 7
The vehemence of the protestations against Sir William Gallagher’s objective comments on the validity of the Treaty process is a powerful indicator of the credence of his observations. Strident and extreme verbiage is the standard tool of the precious left when they are confronted with irrefutable truths.
GRAHAM STEENSON, Whakatane
SIR WILLIAM 8
It looks like Sir William is taking a verbal scourging from some quarters, for offering his opinion on two ‘‘sacred cows’’ – the Treaty and global weather changes, ie, global warming.
It appears that the print media at least is defending his right to publish his opinions on that sound basis, ‘‘We might not agree with what he says, but we will defend unto death his right to say it.’’
Forcing the Treaty upon all Kiwis as a pseudo-religion, a sacred cow, and an unchallengeable dictate was never going to win the hearts and minds of people who are still mingling from many racial and theosophical backgrounds, in that ‘‘melting pot’’ that will eventually define all Kiwis as equal, was never a sound basis for producing that singularity demographic, ie, the true Kiwi.
Thus, Sir William is likely to face having his opinions on global warming discredited, while there will be a lot of support for his opinions regarding, the Treaty. His opponents regarding his opinions on our founding document, and the differing status of those who believe in it as such, risk their own share of ridicule if they simply trot out the omnipotent argument of racism.
DENNIS PENNEFATHER, Te Awamutu
SIR WILLIAM 9
Sir William Gallagher’s speech rightly highlights the divisiveness of granting special rights for Maori. I’m sure the offended will use the go-to words of outraged and racist to endeavour to shut the discussion down.
Maori culture and superstitions are given special recognition and rights in legislation such as the Resource Management Act, Local Bodies Act, the Marine and Coastal Areas Act, etc. No recognition is accorded to Pakeha culture and Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Article 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi grants equality of citizenship but special recognition is not equality. To give the Maori world view a status superior to anyone else’s world view is a denial of the democratic principle of democracy as a form of government in which all eligible citizens are able to participate equally.
Equality used to be just that; equality. Treating everyone equally, alike.
These days it is not that at all. Equality now means discrimination disguised as ideals; it means preferential treatment for special interest groups especially Maori. Promoters of these ideas are not interested in equality but rather recognition of inequality.
No person should be disadvantaged for having a different skin colour, nor should any person be advantaged for exactly the same reason.
RICHARD PRINCE, Tauranga
Otago Daily Times 30/11/17
EXPRESSION WITHOUT FEAR
I WOULD like to congratulate Dave Witherow. Not so much on what he wrote, although that is worthy of debate, but more for the fact that he has made good use of a most valuable freedom that we have — the freedom to express ourselves without fear of imprisonment, or worse.
Where is the value of this if all we use it for is to express that which is acceptable to society or governments.
I don’t agree with all that he wrote, but I would most certainly defend his right to express his opinions.
KEN SPALL, Mosgiel
MORAL indignation oozed from Lydia Anderson’s response to Dave Witherow’s ‘‘racism’’ (ODT, 28.11.17). Methinks she has had minimal contact with urban Maori in state or rented houses whose major concern is paying bills and feeding their families.
Presumably, Ms Anderson’s ‘‘overwhelming majority’’ in support were listeners to a radio station or social media contacts?
A far bigger majority (and not just old ‘‘white men’’) support Mr Witherow’s views. In 1994, I had a task force green job at a popular school in Palmerston North with a 5050 urban country student roll. Form I and II pupils had a choice of learning Maori, French, German, Mandarin or Japanese. None chose Maori.
I. WILLIAMS, Dunedin
Bay of Plenty Times 29/11/17
HISTORY REPEATS
Those who don’t know history are condemned to repeat it.
Obviously, the majority of the councillors at Western Bay District Council do not know their history by voting for Maori wards on Tuesday.
Dieu et mon droit, God and my right, or religion and inheritance, was the world order several centuries ago.
Humankind took a great leap forward in just about every way when one person, one vote became the governance of choice.
Those earlier times were not called the Dark Ages for nothing.
Introducing tribal-based unelected appointees to the council membership is in no way democratic.
Tribalism and racism are two sides of the same coin and must be rejected as a governance model.
Let us hope that a poll of ratepayers does the right thing here.
G FAULKNER, Tauranga
Dominion Post 29/11/17
IRISH INSTRUCTION
Last week, Dame Susan Devoy, in an open response to an opinion piece in a newspaper about the use of te reo Maori, referred to the complainant's country of birth, Ireland. She is reported to have said that Irish Gaelic was a compulsory subject in all public schools, and that study at an Irish university required proficiency in Irish Gaelic.
The former is true, as Irish was given equal status with English in 1922, though the curriculum is still predominantly in English. I would assure anyone thinking of studying in Ireland that it is NOT a prerequisite of Irish universities: they require only proficiency in English.
One hopes that Dame Susan was misquoted: given her role, her statements need to be accurate.
After three generations of compulsory Irish in primary and secondary schooling one might expect more than the current three per cent who claim it as their first language. The Irish Government has indeed proclaimed Irish the official first language, but their target of 250,000 first-language speakers by 2030 (about five per cent of the likely population) says it all.
There is a suggestion that the "official" version in schools (agreed only in the 1950s) is growing away from that of traditional far-west Irish-speaking communities, and becoming a middle-class urban practice. The situation is far from straightforward.
ALAN WHITE Trentham
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers