Inciting Racial Unrest & Promoting Apartheid

Inciting Racial Unrest

& Promoting Apartheid

Where: It may seem unbelievable but I am talking about New Zealand. 

When:          Since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi but particularly more so since the enactment of the Treaty of Waitangi Act legislation in 1975 and the adoption of the post-1986 partnership principle under                      the Treaty.

Who:             The Crown, Iwi, Government, Political parties, Local Bodies, Maori, Other Ethnic Groupings in NZ.  

Background:

The Treaty of Waitangi was signed at Waitangi on the 6^th of February 1840. The Treaty of Waitangi Act legislation was passed by parliament in 1975 and the so-called partnership principle was adopted in about 1986.

Facts:

The Treaty is a very simple document that consists of only three articles as shown below in this copy of the Littlewood draft.

Article one: “The chiefs of the confederation of united tribes, and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England forever the entire sovereignty of their country.”

Article two: “The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.”

Article three: “In return for the cession of their sovereignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.”

The Treaty itself is simply a contract signed by many that ceded sovereignty over New Zealand to the Crown and in return the Crown guaranteed that all citizens would be granted the the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property with the Crown being given the exclusive rights to purchase when the owners decided to sell. It also granted that the people of New Zealand shall have all the rights and privileges of British subjects granted to them.

There were no principles contained in the Treaty document and they only appeared as a result of the government including the mention of them in passing the Treaty of Waitangi Act legislation in 1975.

In that legislation, ‘principles’ referred directly to the meaning, value, and purpose of the Articles in the Treaty of Waitangi. The word ‘principles’ was tied to the Articles. It had no referent outside those Articles.

Parliament did not provide a meaning of the term “Principles” in that Act, and such vacancy of meaning, opened up opportunities for those with vested interests to insert their own meaning.

Opinion:

In inventing and consolidating their version of “Principles”, advocates for a partnership-based co-governance structure have used traditional ideology to provide an almost spiritually authorised quality to their interpretation of the term.

The inclusion of the term “Principles” into legislation without knowing or describing what it meant was an unprecedented failure on the part of our political representatives of that time.

In the words of the Maori King, during his speech to the national hui at Ngāruawāhia in January 2024, he stated that Maori did not want to see any changes in the Treaty and also that there were no principles in the Treaty.

David Seymour, the leader of the Act party has proposed a Treaty Principles Bill as part of his party’s agreement to form a coalition government with National and New Zealand First.

His Bill proposes a solution that should be unremarkable in a democracy but is being reported as subversive and revolutionary. He wants voters to be given the chance to decide their own constitutional future, but his proposal is seen as complete anathema to the so-called elite, who appear to believe that even allowing voters to discuss the matter of the Treaty’s place in New Zealand’s life is unacceptably risky.

His assessment is that even if the Treaty is considered as the nation’s founding document, it is no longer seen by many as relevant to the New Zealand of the 21st century. It is, in fact, the founding document for a bi-cultural New Zealand that no longer exists.

As the leader of the Labour Party the late David Lange said in 2000; his government could not acknowledge the existence of a dual sovereignty.

In a speech given by David Lange in the year 2000 he highlighted the danger to democracy of proceeding down the path of dual sovereignty. Mr Lange said that in a democracy what we cannot do is acknowledge the existence of a separate sovereignty. As soon as we do that, it isn’t a democracy. We can have a democratic form of government or we can have indigenous sovereignty. They can’t co-exist and we can’t have them both. He went on to say that the court of appeal once, absurdly, described the treaty as a partnership between races, but it obviously is not. 

            Any claims of dual sovereignty are not only wrong in fact, but also promote racial                separation of our country and creates a serious threat to our democratic system of governance.

“The Treaty itself contains no principles which can usefully guide government or courts. It is a bald agreement, anchored in its time and place”.

Seymour’s position is that no matter what the Treaty says, or what various “experts” declare its articles actually mean, New Zealand has no future as a modern and prosperous nation if having even a miniscule amount of Maori ancestral blood can grant different political rights to that person.

The almost hysterical reaction to the prospect of a national debate or referendum on Treaty principles is a clear sign that the so-called elite fear his Bill will gain huge public support and they will lose their place on the Gravy Train. The taxpayer’s trough that they have had their snouts buried deep into for the past fifty odd years will be taken away and they may actually have to find a real job.

If you ask the elite if we should have a referendum on co-governance the answer is always no: it’ll be divisive, it’s race-baiting, and people don’t understand what they’re saying.

No one ever says out loud what the real reason they are so opposed to a referendum is that a referendum would most likely return a big, fat no.

They keep repeating that saying no to a referendum will be extremely divisive, but in fact the whole issue of co-governance/partnership is divisive not just referenda to decide the issue.

They don’t seem to realise that the public of New Zealand (normal people) have very real concerns about the push for co-governance (and by association the opposition to any referendum on the Treaty Principles) of this country which is seen as nothing more than an attempt to prioritise part-Maori interests, above those of all other ethnicities in NZ.

What we’re seeing with the push for ethnicity based decision making, is manipulation of facts for political and financial gain. The 'mythical partnership' is being used to secure privileges that no other group in New Zealand enjoys, despite the fact that over 260 ethnicities call this country home.

These privileges—whether they’re related to land rights, legal status, or political representation—are dividing New Zealanders and fuelling resentment. How is this fair; why should one group get special treatment while the rest are expected to stay silent?

What New Zealand needs is one law for all. Equality, fairness, and justice cannot be achieved if we keep pandering to a distorted view of history. Every New Zealander, regardless of their ethnicity, should be treated equally under the law. Special privileges based on race undermine the very principles of democracy and unity that this country should stand for.

One of New Zealand’s most acclaimed Maori Leaders; Sir Apirana Ngata- M.A. LLB. LIT.D in his book, the "Treaty of Waitangi an explanation" concludes with the words:

"The Treaty made the one law for the Maori and Pakeha. If you think these things are wrong and bad then blame our ancestors who gave away their    rights in the days when they were powerful".

The current interpretation of the “Principles” of the Treaty have actually significantly changed the terms of the Treaty and the way the Treaty is enacted, yet they have never been officially put before the public to be ratified.

The suggestion of holding a referendum regards the Treaty Principles was to allow the voters of New Zealand to have a reasoned and rational discussion related to the content of any such principles and then to ratify the result of those discussions through the democratic processes.

Given the recent history of New Zealand (post the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi legislation) and the ill-informed interpretations of the Treaty document, it is definitely time we held a referendum to identify the meaning of the term “Principles” as it applies to the Treaty of Waitangi legislation.

Today it seems “if the Mainstream Media and many Maori groups are to be believed” that there was some type of partnership created under the Treaty and that this demands that we should have a system of co-governance in New Zealand based on Maori having 50% and the other ethnicities having 50% of such a governance system.

We are constantly being harangued by members of the Maori Party and other so-called Maori elite who support their view, about how they are the true voice of Maori and they want to explain the brutal impacts of colonisation on Maori in New Zealand.

They claim to be the true voice of Maori in New Zealand and they hold 6 seats in the New Zealand government yet they could only achieve 3.08% of the Maori vote in the recent 2023 election.

There are a total of 17.3% of the population that identify as being Maori yet the Maori party were only able to gain 3.08% of the total and given that there are supporters who have no Maori ethnicity then to claim that they are the voice of Maori in NZ is a very long stretch of the truth in anyone’s imagination.  

They are continually claiming that all Maori land should be returned to Maori and seem to be inferring that there was something untoward in the fact that Maori have ended up with only 6 percent of the land in New Zealand under Maori title.

So as far as this statement goes let’s look at the full facts of the issue in relation to Maori land ownership.

New Zealand has a total land area of around 26-million hectares. 

About 1.3-million hectares were confiscated during the 1860s as a consequence of tribal rebellion.

There were complaints at that time, and the confiscations were investigated. As a result of those investigations a total of 646,774 hectares were returned, which left 651,793 hectares that remained confiscated.

To be quite clear, the confiscations were legal, a consequence of rebellion and had been carried out under two pieces of legislation passed in 1863 -- the Suppression of Rebellion Act and the New Zealand Settlements Act.

Fast forward to today. Approximately 1.47 million hectares are currently classified as Maori land, and this includes customary land.

So, since Maori owned most of New Zealand’s 26 million hectares in 1840 when the treaty of Waitangi was signed, 1.47 million hectares remain as Maori land, with around 0.6 million hectares remaining confiscated, what happened to the remaining 24 million hectares?

It was sold.

Maori vendors sold a whopping 92 percent of the land area of New Zealand for all sorts of reasons, but mainly, that it was more in their interest to sell than to hold on to it, which is much the same choice made by any ownership group of any asset.

There is a world of difference between losing something and selling it.

People may say that the Maori position has been diminished by the loss of the large percentage of their land but the fact of the matter is that this has come about by the actions of their ancestors who sold the majority of their land.

Though they may have sold it for what would be considered today, as a paltry amount, at the time of the sale they were receiving the going rates and it is not possible to expect any type of redress due to the increase in values since the time of sale.

The new Maori Queen spoke about the brutal impacts of colonisation on Maori in New Zealand prior to her coronation, but she failed to mention any effects on the previous inhabitants of New Zealand from the Maori colonisation of the country.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!

She failed to mention any of the facts behind what actually happened as a result of European colonisation. Maori life expectancy prior to the Treaty was approximately 30years and is now out to 75years. Prior to asking the Crown for a treaty the Maori inter-tribal wars saw approximately 40,000 Maori deaths, slavery and cannibalism was a normal part of their way of life. Colonisation put an end to the inter-tribal Maori warfare and to the practices of slavery and cannibalism. These outcomes don’t seem so bad to me.

Yes they have ended up with only 6% of the land as Maori land but that has mainly come about due to their ancestors selling the rest and that in my opinion does not equate to anything approaching what was quoted by her as “the brutal impacts of colonisation on Maori”.

What she and others fail to mention when discussing colonisation of New Zealand is the fact that Maori were in fact the first colonisers of New Zealand and as a result of their colonisation the original peoples “Moriori” were virtually wiped out.

Their islands were invaded in 1835 by two Māori tribes, Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Mutunga. Moriori were slaughtered (many were cannibalised) or enslaved.

They had offered peace, food and shelter to the recent immigrants who had arrived on an English sailing ship, the Lord Rodney, from Port Nicholson in Wellington, on a mercenary expedition. But the Moriori had their offer of peace thrown back in their faces and, from 1835 to 1866, they were held as slaves on their own island, treated brutally, and forced to do menial labour for their Māori slavers.

During this 31-year period of trauma for Moriori, their population fell dramatically — from about 1700 in 1835 to only 100 survivors by 1870. What happened to the Moriori has been, and to a large extent remains, an inconvenient truth and stain on the history and conscience of our nation.

Many Maori are happy to claim they are the indigenous population of New Zealand but in fact this is not true as by their own admissions they came by canoe to New Zealand from Hawaiki and as such were the first colonisers of this land.

There was never a Maori government in NZ and prior to the Treaty of Waitangi and there was no unified Chiefly authority that could be designated as a King or Leader or some other designation.

The people were divided into tribes and each tribe had numerous sub-tribes with each under their own chief. This meant that the Maori did not have any authority or government that could make laws to govern the whole of the Maori race. This being the case as explained by Sir Āpirana Ngata the aim of the Treaty was to establish a settled form of government with a view to averting the evil consequences to the Maori people and to the Europeans of living without laws.

The Treaty Principles Bill is unequivocally democratic in giving authority to the people though the democratic parliamentary system. This is being strongly resisted by radical traditionalists who insist that what happened in 1840 must bind people forever.

If politicised judges support the belief in the Treaty's sacred timelessness, this will be a grave mistake and continue the slide into New Zealand's racial division.

Just as the Waitangi Treaty was an event fixed in the conditions of the early 19th century, all contracts are written in a historical period and must be available to future parliaments for retention or change. Breaking a contract is a serious matter given their role in economic stability. But contracts must also maintain democratic stability. If there is a contest between economic stability and democratic stability parliament must put democratic stability first.

I have just read a report regards a musical event being organised in Christchurch, by a group called Browntown and the report quotes that tickets for the event are priced differently based on race.

Browntown promotes itself as "a platform for cultural engagement aimed at addressing racism".

Browntown founder and director was defiant in the face of criticism of their racist ticket pricing. Stating that it was "in line with our kaupapa" and "pricing models based on specific groups aren’t unique to this event. Many venues and organisations offer discounted pricing for children, seniors, students..."

The group has received $35,000 in funding from Creative New Zealand's Pacific Arts Fund. A case of arts funding going to blatant racism.

What Browntown haven't got is an understanding of the Human Rights Act 1993 and how discrimination works! Or maybe they just don't care?

A Pasifika Community Leader who didn't want to be named - probably because he would be harassed for daring to speak out - said:

“This is a blatant attempt to manufacture victimhood, and Creative New Zealand fell for it. Charging higher prices for white people doesn’t foster unity; it drives a wedge between communities."

The manager of the bar where the event was scheduled to be held was unaware of the discriminatory ticketing and told the organisers to amend the pricing or face cancellation of the event saying that we have a great sense of acceptance for all cultures and traditions. We support all communities equally.

If this ticket pricing was arranged the other way, and Māori and Pasifika were expected to pay higher prices, there would be an uproar.

The Mainstream Media would have reporters calling for the event to be cancelled and writing full exposes on all parties involved.

Is this an example of what we have to look forward to in New Zealand? Apartheid in action dressed up as some type of affirmative action.

New Zealand's future being a retribalized third world state descending into racial disharmony and civil unrest.