Post by Kiwi Frontline on May 4, 2021 11:27:00 GMT 12
WE MUST REJECT ‘APARTHEID BY STEALTH’ – Clive Bibby
Although the Oxford dictionary specifically refers to the segregationist policies of former South African governments when describing the meaning of the word “apartheid”, that shouldn’t mean similar policies don’t fit the description when operated in countries like our own.
In fact, the worst aspect of the current tidal wave of legislation being rushed through the House is the attempt by our Government to hoodwink all citizens into believing that we need to have separate development for some sections of society in order to achieve the aspirational goals of a minority.
We should totally reject what is becoming in my opinion “apartheid by stealth”, before it becomes cemented in the laws of our homeland.
My concerns are that the current political climate is such that we will only wake up to this disgraceful denial of majority rights when it is too late.
Already we see an emboldened administration riding roughshod over the civil liberties of the bulk of the populace in order to satisfy the needs of a few groups, operating in an atmosphere that is a reflection of a sense of entitlement that can’t be justified.
In normal circumstances, I believe the Government’s main responsibility is in safeguarding individual security and equal opportunity for all, irrespective of ethnicity, religion, political persuasion or position on society’s social ladder.
We should all have equal access to and benefit from the nation’s natural resources. But because some of us are more able to take advantage of our own circumstances than others, the system that re-distributes the basic necessities in a democracy like ours has to prioritise the services it delivers on a “needs” basis. And it can do that without the race-based, segregationist policies this current mob is trying to foist on an, as yet, unsuspecting population.
For our survival as a sovereign nation, we must ensure that whatever systems are developed to accommodate the needs of a modern society, they must fairly represent the aspirations of all groups whether they be crucial to our survival or not.
While accepting that we are “our brother’s keeper”, it isn’t necessary to deny the aspirations of one group in order to help another achieve theirs.
If we truly believe that we are all equal under the law, then it follows that we each have responsibilities for those less fortunate, especially if their circumstances are of no fault of their own.
In my experience, Kiwis have always shown they are quick to recognise special needs and are happy to see the government allocate resources to meet those needs. But there are limits.
Our whole welfare system has developed on the back of individuals “who can” helping those “who can’t”, and generally it has worked well over a long period of time.
But we will not make it better by segregating some with “special needs” from a system that should be made to work for all.
I suspect that the new framework for government operations, whether it be healthcare or fresh water delivery, has its basis in the demand for a system that provides unlimited funds without accountability. Ironically, where that type of reallocation has been tried it has failed dismally to achieve its objectives — simply because no one is held responsible when the taxpayers’ money is spent with nothing to show for it.
I’m sure most Kiwis don’t want a bar of that but unfortunately it is what we are about to get.
Some call it separate development. I call it apartheid by stealth.
**********************************0
FOOTNOTE FROM THE PRO-MAORI GISBORNE HERALD EDITOR: ■ In response to today’s column, it is worth pointing out the ridiculousness of the comparison of Maori finally starting to get some of the self-determination and autonomy promised to them in te Tiriti, and the promise of kaupapa Maori approaches to solving a broad range of issues impacting tangata whenua, with the crime of apartheid.
Leaving aside South Africa’s white supremacy-based system of racial segregation from 1948 until the early 1990s, apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity “committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime”.
www.gisborneherald.co.nz/column/opinion/20210501/we-must-reject-apartheid-by-stealth/
NATIONAL, LABOUR AND HE PUAPUA – Michael Bassett
At last some discussion about He Puapua. The document has been hatched in secret at the behest of the Labour Government and it had to be prized out of Te Puni Kokiri recently using the Official Information Act. Commissioned by Nanaia Mahuta, He Puapua was written by nine people, most of them with European surnames. It is a plan to introduce racial segregation into every aspect of our public service. It would divide our society into Maori who form 16% of the population on which 50% of political power would devolve by 2040, while the other 170 ethnicities in this country who constitute 84% of the population would share the rest. The 16% would enjoy their privileged position because they possess a drop or more of Maori blood. Without that drop, the rest of us are destined to become a rather crowded group of second-class citizens.
Mahuta carefully selected her group of advisers to produce a vision of how New Zealand could be brought into compliance with the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. When the report came to ministers in 2019 it wasn’t released publicly, probably because the Labour government realized that it might be unpopular. No mention was made of He Puapua at the time of the 2020 election. Instead, once re-elected, ministers seem to have decided to implement its separatist recommendations in dribs and drabs. Mahuta has given us Maori wards in local authorities, over-riding public opinion, and shortly Andrew Little will establish a separate Maori Health Authority. It will exercise power in the area of Maori health and also enjoy some rights - yet unexplained - to interfere in health decisions relating to the rest of us. He Puapua proposes separate court and justice systems and contains a timetable for the establishment of a Maori Parliament. We know, too, that the government intends to inflict a disgracefully one-sided history curriculum on our schools, pushing the notion that only Maori values have been important to New Zealand’s history, and that the values of the colonizers who brought reading, writing, arithmetic and a system of justice to a country ravaged by the musket wars in the early Nineteenth Century are of no historical importance.
www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/national-labour-and-he-puapua?postId=ba28789e-bec5-4e7d-bdb2-ad86dc204713
Graham Adams: ARDERN IN THE GUN OVER HE PUAPUA
A covert 20-year plan to establish Maori sovereignty is political dynamite. Graham Adams argues it represents a real threat to the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent.
Judith Collins made no effort to hide the cat-with-the-cream expression on her face when she answered journalists’ questions after a National Party meeting in Auckland on Saturday. She had just delivered a speech that rolled a grenade under Jacinda Ardern — with an apparent confidence that it would go off with an almighty bang and cause an awful lot of damage to the Labour government. She looked extremely pleased with herself.
Collins had already prepared the ground last week for the grenade to have maximum impact when she described the government’s proposal to establish a Maori Health Authority as “racist separation” and “segregation”.
Her statements were met mostly with scorn by media commentators — including damning them as an act of desperation, and obviously made in the vain hope of replicating Don Brash’s lift in the polls after his Orewa speech in 2004. The Maori Party accused her of “playing to the white supremacists”......
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2021/05/graham-adams-ardern-in-gun-over-he.html
Bruce Moon: RANGIAOWHIA – SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
“How gruesome is regime propaganda when directed at infants”
- Christopher Hitchens, “Arguably”, 2011, p.659
It was reported in Stuff for 3rd April 2021 that Leah Bell spoke at a Fairfield College Assembly a few days earlier to commemorate the battle at Orakau Pa 157 years ago. Well, well, anything wrong in that? Yes actually there is - quite a lot!
Leah Bell, it may be recalled, first had her mind poisoned by a teacher – or the teacher’s spouse – when a student at Otorohanga College. She mounted a petition based on a false version of New Zealand’s history and presented it to Nanaia Mahuta at Parliament. So she has something of a record as a political activist. It is reported that she is a “Research Consultant” for Vincent O’Malley, author of dubious accounts of New Zealand history, notably about the events at Rangiaowhia during some Waikato tribes’ Kingite Rebellion, wrongly termed a “New Zealand War”.[1],[2]......
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2021/05/bruce-moon-rangiaowhia-setting-record.html
Chris Trotter: GIVING EFFECT TO THE UN DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
“Getting ahead of the story” is one of the most important aspects of crisis management. As the PR mavens are fond of reminding their clients: “Explaining is losing.”
If Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Government is not very careful, however, it will soon find itself having to explain why it has failed to reject out-of-hand an official document which calmly anticipates the end of democracy as most New Zealanders understand it.
The Report of the Working Group on a Plan to Realise the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Aotearoa/New Zealand is one of the most remarkable documents ever submitted to a Minister of the Crown. Set forth on its pages is a twenty-year plan to transform New Zealand from one of the world’s oldest and most respected continuous democracies into what would effectively be a political condominium, presided over by co-equal Maori and Non-Maori rulers. A state in which the economic and cultural power of non-indigenous New Zealanders would be much diminished, and the authority, wealth and influence of its indigenous people greatly expanded......
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2021/05/chris-trotter-giving-effect-to-un.html
Andrew Dickens: ARE MĀORI BREAKING THE TREATY?
So here's where I wade in; and invariably I'll be told I know nothing as I'm a middle aged, middle class white male. And other people will casually throw around the word racist, but I don't care. This is free speech.
There is no way that the state can be divorced from the care of at risk Maori kids.
If the state pays for it, they get a say. The state is you and me through our taxes. The state is responsible for all New Zealanders, no matter their ethnic background.
Maori are not responsible for just Maori but all New Zealanders. If they take the state's money they take the state's oversight. That’s part of the partnership the Treaty tries to create.
When dealing with vulnerable children, the state provides an objective oversight of difficult situations. Oranga Tamariki should never be accused of offering fear of favour based on cultural ethnicity.......
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2021/05/andrew-dickens-are-maori-breaking-treaty.html
A BREAK IN THE WAVE: GIVING EFFECT TO THE UN DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN AOTEAROA/NEW ZEALAND.
Somewhere, however, someone decided that, on reflection, it might be better to keep the content of He Puapua under wraps. It was not until October of 2020 that Mahuta consented to the release of a highly truncated version of the report.
Unsurprisingly, given the content of He Puapua, opponents of the now decades old “Maori Separatist” agenda were not slow to recognise its radical implications for the future of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. Former Act MP, and founder/director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, Muriel Newman, even managed to secure of copy of the whole 123-page document.
Newman’s judgement of the report’s contents was savage:
In essence, once a Treaty-based constitution is in place and tikanga is embedded in the common law, under Vision 2040 Maori separatists will control the country.
This is not pie in the sky. It is already underway.
There has been no public debate about the Declaration, nor was it mentioned in the Labour Party’s election manifesto.
The only information freely available about this UN plan to replace New Zealand democracy with tribal rule – and enact the biggest overhaul of public affairs this country has ever seen – was a general announcement by Minister Mahuta in 2019, and now, a year and a half later, the partial publication of a document revealing Jacinda Ardern’s dangerous intentions.
Are the National Party and Act aware of the existence of He Puapua, its contents and recommendations? Maybe not. In October of 2020 both of the right-wing parties were in the midst of an election campaign and its aftermath. It is just possible that they missed the importance – and even the fact – of its release altogether.
Besides, as Newman points out, it was under the Prime Ministership of National’s John Key that New Zealand signed-on to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Or, more precisely, it was Key who authorised the Maori Party co-leader, Pita Sharples to fly off secretly to New York in April 2010 to surprise the world with his country’s acceptance at the United Nations.
At the time this was considered something of a coup for both Sharples and Key. After all, the Labour leader, Helen Clark, had consistently refused to support the Declaration while she was prime minister. Clark, like Winston Peters, was convinced that its provisions would have dire consequences for the country’s democratic institutions. Peters’ summation was typically trenchant: “The United Nations Indigenous Peoples Declaration… is the final step on the road to separatism. This is the road to Zimbabwe.”......
bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2021/04/a-break-in-wave-giving-effect-to-un.html
Although the Oxford dictionary specifically refers to the segregationist policies of former South African governments when describing the meaning of the word “apartheid”, that shouldn’t mean similar policies don’t fit the description when operated in countries like our own.
In fact, the worst aspect of the current tidal wave of legislation being rushed through the House is the attempt by our Government to hoodwink all citizens into believing that we need to have separate development for some sections of society in order to achieve the aspirational goals of a minority.
We should totally reject what is becoming in my opinion “apartheid by stealth”, before it becomes cemented in the laws of our homeland.
My concerns are that the current political climate is such that we will only wake up to this disgraceful denial of majority rights when it is too late.
Already we see an emboldened administration riding roughshod over the civil liberties of the bulk of the populace in order to satisfy the needs of a few groups, operating in an atmosphere that is a reflection of a sense of entitlement that can’t be justified.
In normal circumstances, I believe the Government’s main responsibility is in safeguarding individual security and equal opportunity for all, irrespective of ethnicity, religion, political persuasion or position on society’s social ladder.
We should all have equal access to and benefit from the nation’s natural resources. But because some of us are more able to take advantage of our own circumstances than others, the system that re-distributes the basic necessities in a democracy like ours has to prioritise the services it delivers on a “needs” basis. And it can do that without the race-based, segregationist policies this current mob is trying to foist on an, as yet, unsuspecting population.
For our survival as a sovereign nation, we must ensure that whatever systems are developed to accommodate the needs of a modern society, they must fairly represent the aspirations of all groups whether they be crucial to our survival or not.
While accepting that we are “our brother’s keeper”, it isn’t necessary to deny the aspirations of one group in order to help another achieve theirs.
If we truly believe that we are all equal under the law, then it follows that we each have responsibilities for those less fortunate, especially if their circumstances are of no fault of their own.
In my experience, Kiwis have always shown they are quick to recognise special needs and are happy to see the government allocate resources to meet those needs. But there are limits.
Our whole welfare system has developed on the back of individuals “who can” helping those “who can’t”, and generally it has worked well over a long period of time.
But we will not make it better by segregating some with “special needs” from a system that should be made to work for all.
I suspect that the new framework for government operations, whether it be healthcare or fresh water delivery, has its basis in the demand for a system that provides unlimited funds without accountability. Ironically, where that type of reallocation has been tried it has failed dismally to achieve its objectives — simply because no one is held responsible when the taxpayers’ money is spent with nothing to show for it.
I’m sure most Kiwis don’t want a bar of that but unfortunately it is what we are about to get.
Some call it separate development. I call it apartheid by stealth.
**********************************0
FOOTNOTE FROM THE PRO-MAORI GISBORNE HERALD EDITOR: ■ In response to today’s column, it is worth pointing out the ridiculousness of the comparison of Maori finally starting to get some of the self-determination and autonomy promised to them in te Tiriti, and the promise of kaupapa Maori approaches to solving a broad range of issues impacting tangata whenua, with the crime of apartheid.
Leaving aside South Africa’s white supremacy-based system of racial segregation from 1948 until the early 1990s, apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity “committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime”.
www.gisborneherald.co.nz/column/opinion/20210501/we-must-reject-apartheid-by-stealth/
NATIONAL, LABOUR AND HE PUAPUA – Michael Bassett
At last some discussion about He Puapua. The document has been hatched in secret at the behest of the Labour Government and it had to be prized out of Te Puni Kokiri recently using the Official Information Act. Commissioned by Nanaia Mahuta, He Puapua was written by nine people, most of them with European surnames. It is a plan to introduce racial segregation into every aspect of our public service. It would divide our society into Maori who form 16% of the population on which 50% of political power would devolve by 2040, while the other 170 ethnicities in this country who constitute 84% of the population would share the rest. The 16% would enjoy their privileged position because they possess a drop or more of Maori blood. Without that drop, the rest of us are destined to become a rather crowded group of second-class citizens.
Mahuta carefully selected her group of advisers to produce a vision of how New Zealand could be brought into compliance with the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. When the report came to ministers in 2019 it wasn’t released publicly, probably because the Labour government realized that it might be unpopular. No mention was made of He Puapua at the time of the 2020 election. Instead, once re-elected, ministers seem to have decided to implement its separatist recommendations in dribs and drabs. Mahuta has given us Maori wards in local authorities, over-riding public opinion, and shortly Andrew Little will establish a separate Maori Health Authority. It will exercise power in the area of Maori health and also enjoy some rights - yet unexplained - to interfere in health decisions relating to the rest of us. He Puapua proposes separate court and justice systems and contains a timetable for the establishment of a Maori Parliament. We know, too, that the government intends to inflict a disgracefully one-sided history curriculum on our schools, pushing the notion that only Maori values have been important to New Zealand’s history, and that the values of the colonizers who brought reading, writing, arithmetic and a system of justice to a country ravaged by the musket wars in the early Nineteenth Century are of no historical importance.
www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/national-labour-and-he-puapua?postId=ba28789e-bec5-4e7d-bdb2-ad86dc204713
Graham Adams: ARDERN IN THE GUN OVER HE PUAPUA
A covert 20-year plan to establish Maori sovereignty is political dynamite. Graham Adams argues it represents a real threat to the Prime Minister’s reputation as open and transparent.
Judith Collins made no effort to hide the cat-with-the-cream expression on her face when she answered journalists’ questions after a National Party meeting in Auckland on Saturday. She had just delivered a speech that rolled a grenade under Jacinda Ardern — with an apparent confidence that it would go off with an almighty bang and cause an awful lot of damage to the Labour government. She looked extremely pleased with herself.
Collins had already prepared the ground last week for the grenade to have maximum impact when she described the government’s proposal to establish a Maori Health Authority as “racist separation” and “segregation”.
Her statements were met mostly with scorn by media commentators — including damning them as an act of desperation, and obviously made in the vain hope of replicating Don Brash’s lift in the polls after his Orewa speech in 2004. The Maori Party accused her of “playing to the white supremacists”......
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2021/05/graham-adams-ardern-in-gun-over-he.html
Bruce Moon: RANGIAOWHIA – SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
“How gruesome is regime propaganda when directed at infants”
- Christopher Hitchens, “Arguably”, 2011, p.659
It was reported in Stuff for 3rd April 2021 that Leah Bell spoke at a Fairfield College Assembly a few days earlier to commemorate the battle at Orakau Pa 157 years ago. Well, well, anything wrong in that? Yes actually there is - quite a lot!
Leah Bell, it may be recalled, first had her mind poisoned by a teacher – or the teacher’s spouse – when a student at Otorohanga College. She mounted a petition based on a false version of New Zealand’s history and presented it to Nanaia Mahuta at Parliament. So she has something of a record as a political activist. It is reported that she is a “Research Consultant” for Vincent O’Malley, author of dubious accounts of New Zealand history, notably about the events at Rangiaowhia during some Waikato tribes’ Kingite Rebellion, wrongly termed a “New Zealand War”.[1],[2]......
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2021/05/bruce-moon-rangiaowhia-setting-record.html
Chris Trotter: GIVING EFFECT TO THE UN DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
“Getting ahead of the story” is one of the most important aspects of crisis management. As the PR mavens are fond of reminding their clients: “Explaining is losing.”
If Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Government is not very careful, however, it will soon find itself having to explain why it has failed to reject out-of-hand an official document which calmly anticipates the end of democracy as most New Zealanders understand it.
The Report of the Working Group on a Plan to Realise the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Aotearoa/New Zealand is one of the most remarkable documents ever submitted to a Minister of the Crown. Set forth on its pages is a twenty-year plan to transform New Zealand from one of the world’s oldest and most respected continuous democracies into what would effectively be a political condominium, presided over by co-equal Maori and Non-Maori rulers. A state in which the economic and cultural power of non-indigenous New Zealanders would be much diminished, and the authority, wealth and influence of its indigenous people greatly expanded......
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2021/05/chris-trotter-giving-effect-to-un.html
Andrew Dickens: ARE MĀORI BREAKING THE TREATY?
So here's where I wade in; and invariably I'll be told I know nothing as I'm a middle aged, middle class white male. And other people will casually throw around the word racist, but I don't care. This is free speech.
There is no way that the state can be divorced from the care of at risk Maori kids.
If the state pays for it, they get a say. The state is you and me through our taxes. The state is responsible for all New Zealanders, no matter their ethnic background.
Maori are not responsible for just Maori but all New Zealanders. If they take the state's money they take the state's oversight. That’s part of the partnership the Treaty tries to create.
When dealing with vulnerable children, the state provides an objective oversight of difficult situations. Oranga Tamariki should never be accused of offering fear of favour based on cultural ethnicity.......
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2021/05/andrew-dickens-are-maori-breaking-treaty.html
A BREAK IN THE WAVE: GIVING EFFECT TO THE UN DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN AOTEAROA/NEW ZEALAND.
Somewhere, however, someone decided that, on reflection, it might be better to keep the content of He Puapua under wraps. It was not until October of 2020 that Mahuta consented to the release of a highly truncated version of the report.
Unsurprisingly, given the content of He Puapua, opponents of the now decades old “Maori Separatist” agenda were not slow to recognise its radical implications for the future of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. Former Act MP, and founder/director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, Muriel Newman, even managed to secure of copy of the whole 123-page document.
Newman’s judgement of the report’s contents was savage:
In essence, once a Treaty-based constitution is in place and tikanga is embedded in the common law, under Vision 2040 Maori separatists will control the country.
This is not pie in the sky. It is already underway.
There has been no public debate about the Declaration, nor was it mentioned in the Labour Party’s election manifesto.
The only information freely available about this UN plan to replace New Zealand democracy with tribal rule – and enact the biggest overhaul of public affairs this country has ever seen – was a general announcement by Minister Mahuta in 2019, and now, a year and a half later, the partial publication of a document revealing Jacinda Ardern’s dangerous intentions.
Are the National Party and Act aware of the existence of He Puapua, its contents and recommendations? Maybe not. In October of 2020 both of the right-wing parties were in the midst of an election campaign and its aftermath. It is just possible that they missed the importance – and even the fact – of its release altogether.
Besides, as Newman points out, it was under the Prime Ministership of National’s John Key that New Zealand signed-on to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Or, more precisely, it was Key who authorised the Maori Party co-leader, Pita Sharples to fly off secretly to New York in April 2010 to surprise the world with his country’s acceptance at the United Nations.
At the time this was considered something of a coup for both Sharples and Key. After all, the Labour leader, Helen Clark, had consistently refused to support the Declaration while she was prime minister. Clark, like Winston Peters, was convinced that its provisions would have dire consequences for the country’s democratic institutions. Peters’ summation was typically trenchant: “The United Nations Indigenous Peoples Declaration… is the final step on the road to separatism. This is the road to Zimbabwe.”......
bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2021/04/a-break-in-wave-giving-effect-to-un.html