QUESTION: Are elderly people with underlying serious health problems and the disabled including children being deliberately culled by some UN Member States that have Euthanasia Policies.

QUESTION; Many elderly in care homes, are receiving shingles, pneumonia, flu, CVID shots and the Boosters, Many of these shots given within a short period of time of each other. Do you believe this is good for their health, is it advantageous or do you think the elderly are being culled.

QUESTION: The worst abortion law in the world was introduced in NZ whilst people had their eyes fixed on COVID19. Is this part and parcel of depopulation globally?

QUESTION: The NZ Govts purchased mainstream media is certainly influencing a vast number of peoples minds. The ongoing crisis events of emergencies, COVID Deaths. Stay in your bubble-its dangerous outside your bubble. The Mandate the significant loss of jobs and small business, the severe struggle the farmers have with the govt using them as their whipping boy. The shortage and huge cost of living, basic living expenses.

The failed Mental Health System. Children not attending schools for long periods of time and many not returning to school. Education being politicised, sexualized. The Govt with its Marxist Class ideology of Pakeha and Maori/Iwi- deliberate separate and divide to cause distention and fragmentation. The favouring of Iwi Elite, pandering to all their wants. Indigenous Constitution, UNDRIP entrenchment. Control of Water. Control of NZ’s environment.

QUESTION: How much did the government know about the COVID 19 shots before they purchased millions of dozes for NZ and Pacific Island? Zilch to very little. Yet they signed an agreement to give Pfizer / Moderna immunity from being held accountable responsible for jab injuries and post jab deaths. ZILCH

NOTE: An official complaint was heard in a Texas Court on January 6^th 2022. By Judge Pittman/ The courts concluded  findings  were based on the complainants seeking of all FDA information as to the authorization of Pfizer jabs that allowed them to market them worldwide.

The court concluded that the request of the complainants is of paramount importance” and referred to excessive administrative secrecy, thus reducing confidence in governments.  The FDA shall produce the 12,000 plus pages of Pfizer information before January 31^st 2022. They will also produce 55,000 pages every 30days – with the first production being due on 1^st March 2022 until production is complete.

NOTE:  It was reported that it will be 2 to 3 years before these documents are made public. In the meantime Pfizer jabs are still being pushed worldwide  including in New Zealand. So if all this important information pertaining to the Pfizer COVID19 jab. This proves N Z Govt knew zilch about the COVID19 jab before they promoted it, demanded it, mandated it.

.NOTE: Pfizer chief Executive had refused to give information about their Pfizer COVID19 jabs had said “NO you are not having it, and NO we won’t give it to you” Hence this is why it had to go through the court process – a case against FDA.  However, again what has Pfizer not told FDA?

What does the Government NOT tell N Z Citizens…They are corruptly reporting false COVID19 death rates. Are not accurately reporting the true death rates of Post jabbed. Heaps and heaps.. As from 10th March 2022 a COVID 19 related death was re-classified in NZ. ‘If a person receives a COVID19 Positive test result and they die within 28 days of that test they are now classified as a COVID19 death. Hence hiking up the number of COVID19 deaths deliberately so . The is highly corrupt and evil, cruel has enormous effects on peoples lives.

The Climate Emergency Gloom and Doom Scam: Targeting the farmers.They do not tell you that their balls-up of the Local Govt Act 2002 had a massive legal loophole in it from day one, and they knew this. No – lets just blame the farmers, lets throw them under the tractor.  This is actually a corporate capture of NZ, a globalised Corporate capture. To replace the free-market economy with a multistakeholder corporate governance . Has huge effects also on all NZrs. No Farmers-No Food.

The  Local Govt Act 2002- the loophole that’s existed for 20 years which govt has deliberately not fixed as allowed businesses, companies to leach heavy toxins, ammonia and other shit like yellow gunge that covers filters in waste water stations, heavy pollutants that run into drains, rivers, out into our water.

 The Government has been asked to amend the Local Govt Act 2002 multiple times and they still turn a blind eye to it. No prosecutions, no fines and hundreds of company breach the Traded Waster Regulations time and time again over this 20 year timed frame. But no the government are more interested in Iwi Elite controlling fresh water in NZ. The waste water has to wait another couple of years Mahuta says. Mahuta is the Minister for Local Government.

Fonterra’s 29 Ghost Farms in NZ. That leaches heavy nitrates into the soil across the land into neighbouring farms bore water. They call it Nutrient farming. Fonterra washes their factories out with this water, and the waste water is piped onto these farms that they have purchased, then sprayed across the land. The cattle have all been removed from these farms. But the sign ‘Beware of the cattle still remains on the gate’. They sell the sprayed grass elsewhere for cattle feed, they call it ‘Cut Grass’. Fonterra admitted this and have had supply many farmers with filters for their bore drinking water.

Water on the stock market is like selling  gold on the stock market. The Corporate Capture of New Zealand. Iwi Corporates have been around for more than a decade.. A Corporate Governance of NZ was reported by the government themselves in 2003. The Corporate Governance= Public Private Partnership, a vehicle where the corporates are the drivers, the government the back seat passengers and  NZr’s the roadkill.The Truth MUST be exposed.   

NOTE: All this information was found in the mainstream media Not Social Media                                                           

 

...

An article was posted on September 8^th 2012 authored by Professor Elizabeth Rata of the School of Critical Studies in Education at Auckland University. She is known for her work and research in the area of ‘effects of ethnic politics on educational change’. She stated that “Iwi have been extremely successful in pursuing their demands for public resources and political power. The intriguing question being – is how to explain such total success given that many New Zealanders, both Maori and Non-Maori are increasingly concerned by the run away juggernaut of Iwi ambitions. Elizabeth Rata described Iwi success is based on unquestioned belief that there is direct continuity between the traditional tribe and contemporary Iwi. Thus using this to justify Iwi claims for the inheritance of resources and various levels of governance, she said that the ‘ Treaty is promoted as a document of ‘Inheritance’. But Iwi Corporations are they the same entities as the tribes of the past, and therefore entitled to inherit the past’

Should this be challenged, and why is it not being challenged.?  It is that not ‘walking on broken glass’ fear of the repercussions, that those that have the power and voice to speak out, do not do so because they may have the words ‘racist, white supremacists, far right being rammed down their throat. How cowardly is that. Its time for public debates without government intrusion as to what majority of New Zealanders want for their country. Do you really believe that Iwi have the right to claim our public resources, to manage private lands that are freehold owned by NZ Citizens?

As Elizabeth Rata states- “ALL traditional societies are based on kinship social relations and on ones birth status in the kin group. You are born into the group, defining your identity and how you lived your life. Modern societies are based on the ‘social contract’. Social groups, even those with long traditions like religions, as associations of individuals” Members are free to join, leave, decide how strongly they wish to identify with the group”. A shift from status to contract is at the heart of the great tradition-modern divide. This shift has changed all social groups fundamentally, and this includes Iwi in NZ today.(The changed relationship between individual and society)

Traditional groupings are non-divisible, present day Iwi like all modern groups are associations of individuals. This means that contemporary Iwi have the same rights and responsibilities as other groups in society, neither more nor less. Traditional societies do not have separation between economic and political spheres. Modern democratic societies like NZ do, this is to ensure that ALL individuals according to their status as citizens and regardless of their unequal economic position have an equal say in politics.

Contemporary Iwi are ‘private Economic Corporations’ claiming public-political status. An economic corporation claiming political rights eats at the heart of the political-economical separation. This Iwi political- economic separation in undemocratic. Democracy does not exist in New Zealand. I myself,  believe this Iwi Corporation should not inherit from what is becoming a tribal feudalism fuelled by the Iwi Elite and those political cronies in the cesspit of Wellington. As Elizabeth Rata pointed out “All of us living today are descended from traditional people, we all retain and maintain a number of values, beliefs, practices that come from the past.

This she explains is a ‘Superficial Continuity’ that the fundamental difference is a ‘Structural’ one. Modern society is based on the individual as the bearer of political rights and on the separation of the political sphere from the economic sphere. The skill of the Iwi case lies in the use of two extremely successful strategies. For example ‘the creation of a new interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi as NZ’s founding document, and as a partnership between the Govt and Iwi. Also the appeal to Common Law. The re-interpretation of  the Treaty as a ‘partnership’ between two political entities dates back to the Court Of Appeal decision in the late 1980’s, where it was stated that the Treaty established a relationship ‘akin to a partnership’. That many people do not question and believe it is true, either out of self interests or have been indoctrinated, brainwashed to believe so. There is ‘No Partnership’ mentioned, documented in the Treaty document’ What is being published by mainstream media and govt is a legal fiction. ‘THEY ARE LYING”

Elizabeth Rata refers to David Round’s comment about Treaty partnership “If there were to be a partnership of Maori and the Crown, then by definition Maori could not be subjects of the Crown. One cannot be a partner and a subject at the same time” (David Round 2011). The idea that the Treaty is NZs founding document is premature. A nations founding document is of great symbolic importance to NZ. It requires widespread ongoing  discussion possibly over several generations. Elizabeth Rata states “whether a single document is selected for this symbolic honour or whether a number of historical documents and events are regarded as significant and given special status is in itself an historic task. Its one that is made difficult by the removal of specific history topics from the national curriculum. That in order to decide what is historically significant one must know NZs history and what choices are possible.

Ardern announced NZ history will be taught in schools and kura by 2022 as part of the schools curriculum 12^th September 2019 Beehive announcement by Ardern and Hipkins. The history curriculum to include The Arrival Of Maori to NZ. First encounters, early colonial history of NZ, Treaty Of Waitangi and history, Colonisation of NZ, immigration to NZ, including the NZ Wars. Evolving national identity of NZ in the late 19^th and early 20^th Century. NZ’s role in the Pacific, Aotearoa NZ in the late 20^th century and evolution of national identity with cultural plurity.Hipkins said “The Ministry will call on historical and curriculum experts, Iwi and Mana Whenua, pacific communities, students, whanau and other strong interest groups.

This includes schools working in partnership with their local iwi communities and mana whenua. The changes will cover the whole breadth of the national curriculum. Tikanga a Iwi to be compulsory from year 1 – 10. From Year 11 schools can choose which subjects their students are required to take. RNZ reported 24 May 2021 ‘Moriori fear their history will be left out of the new school curriculum. The Hokotehi Moriori Trust said the draft Aotearoa New Zealand Histories Curriculum mentioned Moriori only once. The Trusts cultural and science projects coordinator Susan Thorpe said it was a serious omission especially as the Crown had acknowledged the school system had spread misinformation that Moriori are  still battling. She said “Failure to tell history hurts more that its telling” Maui Solomon blamed Pakeha historians for badly blighting Moiriori history. However thats not what the NZ Government National archives have published.

The Moriori philosophy of non-violence was especially important and deserved wider recognition, Morris said. Grant Morris of Victoria University. Moriori – Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand From NZ Govt Archives I researched how there was a horrific slaughtering, enslavement of Moriori by two Maori warring tribes that visited to Chatham Islands. Yet some managed to survive. (The horrific story of this horrible tragic event is told within the NZ Govt archives). The Government has adopted a strategy that mana whenua, iwi tell the story of the history of NZ.as they see it. There has been no wider public debate about what should be taught to children in schools. The Government have become the custodians of our children’s lives.

There has to my knowledge been no public debate without government / Iwi Elite interruption as to the founding document. Iwi elite and self interested parties use the Treaty as a document of Inheritance, its not about the symbolic value to the whole nation of NZ. The Treaty is a document of inheritance for the government/ Iwi Elite own strategic reasons. As Elizabeth Rata states ‘ The Treaty symbolises the idea of continuity between the tradition world and the modern world. The new interpretation of the Treaty is also supported by the Iwi focus on Article 2. About ‘Resource Possession’, driving the meaning of the 1^st and 3^rd Articles of the Treaty. (With the effect of the isolated method of interpretation, is to lose the integrated meaning of the articles.) The concepts of ‘sovereignty’ in Article 1, of resource possession in Article 1. And of Resource possession in Article 2, and ‘Citizenship’ in Article 3, they tend to be in totality. Hence meaning that one Article being dependent upon the meaning of the others. Enabling Article two to achieve an undeserved dominance.

Another strategy for Iwi success, has proved very valuable to them and highly effective is the ‘use of legal language and procedures’ This has served to embed the idea that Iwi ambitions are true and just. Makes good use of New Zealanders right and proper respect for law. Elizabeth Rata states “This has a less healthy side, it can produce an uncritical acceptance of ideas that use the weight of legalese. Some words gaining an unearned respect, their use can stop people identifying and criticizing the political interests that are promoted in legal arguments, by using these words ‘Common Law’. Customary Law and English Common Law these are often used by Iwi for this reason. It pulls the wool over our eyes. Therefore Common Law of ‘Do No Harm’ can be used, abused to do harm. Iwi are in a long tradition of elites, they use their legal antiquity strategy for their own political ends. Elizabeth Rata refers to 18^th Century Edmond Burke who referred to Iwi ‘ the powerful prepossession towards antiquity, in the minds of lawyers and legislators and all the people whom they wish to influence” (Burke, cited in Hampsher-Monk 1992 Page 267)

This argument accepts Common Law as a given but disputes to whom it applies. F W Maitland a 19^th Century legal historian stated that “the foundational group or tribe, or clan is not, has never been past of the English Constitution, even in Anglo Saxon times. He found that ‘individualism, not foundational grouping was the distinguishing characteristic of Anglo Saxon legal, economic and political relations. Thus meaning that Common Law did not apply to foundational groups. He said not all civilizations had started in the world where individuals were embedded in the community, where contract was entirely subordinate to status, where hierarchy and ;patriarchy were universal.(Macfarlande 2002 P83)

Elizabeth Rata published that ‘Individuals and associations of individuals were recognised in various forms of contract at the beginning of the development of English Common Law. It is the individual, in these various forms of contractual trusts and associations, not the indivisible kinship group which is the basis of Common Law. ‘Iwi want the 1970’s interpretation of the Treaty Of Waitangi to be included in a new NZ Constitution. The interpretation to be promoted as true, a legal fiction that uses constant references to laws, government  legislations. This is a political strategy built on a legal fiction. Legal does not mean lawful. This is unlawful. This is how Govt and Iwi Elite wants history to be remembered and flouted by one big lie. That serves the interests of those who promote the lies..

Within the political cesspit of Wellington and publicly outside that political toilet bowl the criticism for the lies that New Zealanders have been told, and have had to have rammed down their throats, taught to our children in schools is never criticised publicly by these political  toilet sitters. They must be criticized, we must urge open public debate. Democracy is being able to participate in open public debate without being harassed, character assassinated by political entities Iwi elite as busy cloaking themselves in legal justification.

As Elizabeth Rata states in her article of 2012 “whatever the law might say about the meaning of the Treaty, the final decision about its place in our society is a political one. The Treaty’s usefulness to NZ must therefore be decided in the political sphere, not in the courts and by lawyers but  by us, the people of NZ. Its usefulness to New Zealand must therefore be decided in the political sphere, not in courts by judges and lawyers, but by us, the people. She refers to  Corporations, businesses, Iwi Corporations, to give political power to these to subvert the basic conditions of democracy, where economic is put under control of political, they should be under separate spheres.

In 2012 Elizabeth Rata said “The rapidly growing practice by successive governments of giving public resources to private corporations is bizarre and bewildering. In New Zealand it has happened and is a testament to the political skill of Iwi and to the failure of New Zealanders to say ‘NO’. We need to recognise that if we believe and act as if  traditional kinship as the same entity as a modern social group it subverts the basic condition of democracy. The principle of contractual social relations and the political status of the individual as is a New Zealand citizen, regardless of that persons racial origin and cultural affiliation.

Iwi have been extremely successful in pursuing their demands for public resources and political power. The intriguing question being – is how to explain such total success given that many New Zealanders, both Maori and Non-Maori are increasingly concerned by the run away juggernaut of Iwi ambitions. Elizabeth Rata described Iwi success is based on unquestioned belief that there is direct continuity between the traditional tribe and contemporary Iwi. Thus using this to justify Iwi claims for the inheritance of resources and various levels of governance. The Treaty is promoted as a document of ‘Inheritance’. But Iwi Corporations are they the same entities as the tribes of the past, and therefore entitled to inherit the past?

As Elizabeth Rata states- “ALL traditional societies are based on kinship social relations and on ones birth status in the kin group. You are born into the group, defining your identity and how you lived your life. Modern societies are based on the ‘social contract’. Social groups, even those with long traditions like religions, as associations of individuals” Members are free to join, leave, decide how strongly they wish to identify with the group. A shift from status to contract is at the heart of the great tradition-modern divide. This shift has changed all social groups fundamentally, and this includes Iwi in NZ today.(The changed relationship between individual and society). Traditional groupings are non-divisible, present day Iwi like all modern groups are associations of individuals. This means that contemporary Iwi have the same rights and responsibilities as other groups in society, neither more nor less.

Traditional societies do not have separation between economic and political spheres. Modern democratic societies like NZ do, this is to ensure that ALL individuals according to their status as citizens and regardless of their unequal economic position have an equal say in politics. Contemporary Iwi are ‘private Economic Corporations’ claiming public-political status. An economic corporation claiming political rights eats at the heart of the political-economical separation. This Iwi political- economic separation in undemocratic. Democracy does not exist in New Zealand. As Elizabeth Rata pointed out “All of us living today are descended from traditional people, we all retain and maintain a number of values, beliefs, practices that come from the past. This she explains is a ‘Superficial Continuity’ that the fundamental difference is a ‘Structural’ one. Modern society is based on the individual as the bearer of political rights and on the separation of the political sphere from the economic sphere. The skill of the iwi case lies in the use of two extremely successful strategies. 1)Is the creation of a new interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi as NZ’s founding document, and as a partnership between the Govt and Iwi and  (2) The appeal to Common Law.

The re-interpretation of  the Treaty as a ‘partnership’ between two political entities dates back to the Colurt Of Appeal decision in the late 1980’s, where it was stated that the Treaty established a relationship ‘akin to a partnership’. That many people do not question and believe it is true, either out of self interests or have been indoctrinated, brainwashed to believe so. There is ‘No Partnership’ mentioned, documented in the Treaty document’ What is being published by mainstream media and govt is a legal fiction. ‘THEY ARE LYING”

Elizabeth Rata refers to David Round’s comment about Treaty partnership “If there were to be a partnership of Maori and the Crown, then by definition Maori could not be subjects of the Crown. One cannot be a partner and a subject at the same time” (David Round 2011). The idea that the Treaty is NZs founding document is premature. A nations founding document is of great symbolic importance to NZ. It requires widespread ongoing  discussion possibly over several generations. Elizabeth Rata states “whether a single document is selected for this symbolic honour or whether a number of historical documents and events are regarded as significant and given special status is in itself an historic task. Its one that is made difficult by the removal of specific history topics from the national curriculum. That in order to decide what is historically significant one must know NZs history and what choices are possible.

Ardern announced NZ history will be taught in schools and kura by 2022 as part of the schools curriculum 12^th September 2019 Beehive announcement by Ardern and Hipkins. The history curriculum to include The Arrival Of Maori to NZ. First encounters, early colonial history of NZ, Treaty Of Waitangi and history, Colonisation of NZ, immigration to NZ, including the NZ Wars. Evolving national identity of NZ in the late 19^th and early 20^th Century. NZ’s role in the Pacific, Aotearoa NZ in the late 20^th century and evolution of national identity with cultural plurity. Hipkins said “The Ministry will call on historical and curriculum experts, Iwi and Mana Whenua, pacific communities, students, whanau and other strong interest groups. This includes schools working in partnership with their local iwi communities and mana whenua. The changes will cover the whole breadth of the national curriculum. Tikanga a Iwi to be compulsory from year 1 – 10. From Year 11 schools can choose which subjects their students are required to take.

RNZ reported 24 May 2021 ‘Moriori fear their history will be left out of the new school curriculum. The Hokotehi Moriori Trust said the draft Aotearoa New Zealand Histories Curriculum mentioned Moriori only once. The Trusts cultural and science projects coordinator Susan Thorpe said it was a serious omission especially as the Crown had acknowledged the school system had spread misinformation that Moriori are  still battling. She said “Failure to tell history hurts more that its telling” Maui Solomon blamed Pakeha historians for badly blighting Moiriori history. The Moriori philosophy of non-violence was especially important and deserved wider recognition, Morris said. Grant Morris of Victoria University. Moriori – Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand From NZ Govt Archives I researched how there was a horrific slaughtering, enslavement of Moriori by two Maori warring tribes that visited to Chatham Islands. Yet some managed to survive. (The horrific story of this horrible tragic event is told within the NZ Govt archives)

The Government has adopted a strategy that mana whenua, iwi tell the story of the history of NZ.as they see it. There has been no wider public debate about what should be taught to children in schools. The Government have become the custodians of our children’s lives. There has to my knowledge been no public debate without government / Iwi Elite interruption as to the founding document. Iwi elite and self interested parties use the Treaty as a document of Inheritance, its not about the symbolic value to the whole nation of NZ.

The Treaty is a document of inheritance for the government/ Iwi Elite own strategic reasons. As Elizabeth Rata states ‘ The Treaty symbolises the idea of continuity between the tradition world and the modern world. The new interpretation of the Treaty is also supported by the Iwi focus on Article 2. About ‘Resource Possession’, driving the meaning of the 1^st and 3^rd Articles of the Treaty. (With the effect of the isolated method of interpretation, is to lose the integrated meaning of the articles.) The concepts of ‘sovereignty’ in Article 1, of resource possession in Article 1. , and of Resource possession in Article 2, and ‘Citizenship’ in Article 3, they tend to be in totality. Hence meaning that one Article being dependent upon the meaning of the others. Enabling Article two to achieve an undeserved dominance.

Another strategy for Iwi success, has proved very valuable to them and highly effective is the ‘use of legal language and procedures’ This has served to embed the idea that Iwi ambitions are true and just. Makes good use of New Zealanders right and proper respect for law. Elizabeth Rata states “This has a less healthy side, it can produce an uncritical acceptance of ideas that use the weight of legalese. Some words gaining an unearned respect, their use can stop people identifying and criticizing the political interests that are promoted in legal arguments, by using these words ‘Common Law’. Customary Law and English Common Law these are often used by Iwi for this reason. It pulls the wool over our eyes. Therefore Common Law of ‘Do No Harm’ can be used, abused to do harm. Iwi are in a long tradition of elites, they use their legal antiquity strategy for their own political ends. Elizabeth Rata refers to 18^th Century Edmond Burke who referred to Iwi ‘ the powerful prepossession towards antiquity, in the minds of lawyers and legislators and all the people whom they wish to influence” (Burke, cited in Hampsher-Monk 1992 Page 267)

This argument accepts Common Law as a given but disputes to whom it applies. F W Maitland a 19^th Century legal historian stated that “the foundational group or tribe, or clan is not, has never been past of the English Constitution, even in Anglo Saxon times. He found that ‘individualism, not foundational grouping was the distinguishing characteristic of Anglo Saxon legal, economic and political relations. Thus meaning that Common Law did not apply to foundational groups. He said not all civilizations had started in the world where individuals were embedded in the community, where contract was entirely subordinate to status, where hierarchy and ;patriarchy were universal.(Macfarlande 2002 P83). Elizabeth Rata published that ‘Individuals and associations of individuals were recognised in various forms of contract at the beginning of the development of English Common Law. It is the individual, in these various forms of contractual trusts and associations, not the indivisible kinship group which is the basis of Common Law.

‘Iwi want the 1970’s interpretation of the Treaty Of Waitangi to be included in a new NZ Constitution. The interpretation to be promoted as true, a legal fiction that uses constant references to laws, government  legislations. This is a political strategy built on a legal fiction. Legal does not mean lawful. This is unlawful. This is how Govt and Iwi Elite wants history to be remembered and flouted by one big lie. That serves the interests of those who promote the lies.. Within the political cesspit of Wellington and publicly outside that political toilet bowl the criticism for the lies that New Zealanders have been told, and have had to have rammed down their throats, taught to our children in schools is never criticised publicly by these political  toilet sitters. They must be criticized, we must urge open public debate. Democracy is being able to participate in open public debate without being harassed, character assassinated by political entities Iwi elite as busy cloaking themselves in legal justification. Nanaia Mahuta is running a three day workshop on this 21st Nov 2022-23rd Nov 2022 Auckland University, guest speakers from overseas and local Iwi. The plan is to entrench New Zealand society, economy with the UN Declaration for Indigenous Peoples. (UNDRIP)

As Elizabeth Rata states in her article of 2012 “whatever the law might say about the meaning of the Treaty, the final decision about its place in our society is a political one. The Treaty’s usefulness to NZ must therefore be decided in the political sphere, not in the courts and by lawyers but  by us, the people of NZ. Its usefulness to New Zealand must therefore be decided in the political sphere, not in courts by judges and lawyers, but by us, the people. Referring to Corporations, businesses, Iwi Corporations, to give political power to these to subvert the basic conditions of democracy, where economic is put under control of political, they should be under separate spheres. In 2012 Elizabeth Rata said “The rapidly growing practice by successive governments of giving public resources to private corporations is bizarre and bewildering. In New Zealand it has happened and is a testament to the political skill of Iwi and to the failure of New Zealanders to say ‘NO’

We need to recognise that if we believe and act as if  traditional kinship as the same entity as a modern social group it subverts the basic condition of democracy. The principle of contractual social relations and the political status of the individual as is a New Zealand citizen, regardless of that persons racial origin and cultural affiliation.

I believe Iwi Corporations, self interested Iwi activists should not inherit from what is becoming a tribal feudalism fuelled by the Iwi Elite and those political cronies in the cesspit of WellingtonI believe this Iwi Corporation should not inherit from what is becoming a tribal feudalism fuelled by the Iwi Elite and those political cronies in the cesspit of Wellington. Should this be challenged, and why is it not being challenged. It is that not ‘walking on broken glass’ fear of the repercussions, that those that have the power and voice to speak out, do not do so because they may have the words ‘racist, white supremacists, far right being rammed down their throat. How cowardly is that. Its time for public debates without government intrusion as to what majority of New Zealanders want for their country. Do you really believe that Iwi have the right to claim our public resources, to manage private lands that are freehold owned by NZ Citizens?

Iwi have been exceptionally effective in obtaining considerable public resources and political recognition, and enough is never enough and now its Nanaia Mahuta and her ‘The Iwi-Crown Constitution and beyond’ for Indigenous peoples interests’. The entrenchment of the UNDRIP into the whole of NZ Society. Ardern has named Iwi as the leaders of NZ. We must use positive public criticism, we must openly scrutinize without feeling we are walking on broken glass. We must rise up, and speak up publicly. Find that moral courage to do so. We must put a stop to the robbing of public resources and the increasing institutionalised apartheid- identity politics of NZ.

We must use positive public criticism, we must openly scrutinize without feeling we are walking on broken glass. We must rise up, and speak up publicly. Find that moral courage to do so. We must put a stop to the robbing of public resources and the increasing institutionalised apartheid- identity politics of NZ. We must stand in Unity. As All One People. He Iwi Tahi Tatou. I raise my voice to encourage Moral Courage intertwined with  Christian Belief’s, Values and Morals.

nzcpr.com/an-argument-against-iwi-claims-to-constitutional-recognition-and-public-resources/

 

 

...

SPEECH BY MAORI AFFAIRS MINISTER:   PAREKURA HOROMIA:- TO THE HOUSE (Parliament)

SPEECH IS AS FOLLOWS:-

The Mâori Party is full of hollow talk over the government’s decision not to support the UN Declaration Of The Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), says Mâori Affairs Minister Parekura Horomia.

Contrary to a number of misleading claims by the party’s co-leaders today, the New Zealand government did not vote against a move at the United Nations to outlaw discrimination against indigenous peoples.   Nor does the government accept Tariana Turia’s ridiculous claim that this government believes indigenous people are “ sub-human with only sub-human rights” – which I, and no doubt my Mâori caucus colleagues, frankly find offensive.”

The declaration adopted in the UN yesterday is in effect a wish list which fails to bind states to any of its provisions, Mr Horomia said.  “This means it is toothless. I’m actually more than a little surprised the Mâori Party is prepared to back something which effectively offers indigenous peoples no more than aspirational statements.”

Our government has worked extremely hard over a number of years to help forge a declaration which protects and promotes the rights of indigenous peoples in a meaningful way – and which states could actually implement, Mr Horomia said.

“The declaration adopted does neither and while we are proud of our efforts, we are deeply disappointed with the final result which we could not support.  “There are four provisions we have problems with, which make the declaration fundamentally incompatible with New Zealand’s constitutional and legal arrangements and established Treaty settlement policy.”

Article 26 of the Declaration states that indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. For New Zealand this covers potentially the entire country.   “It appears to require recognition of rights to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens, both indigenous and non-indigenous. This ignores contemporary reality and would be impossible to implement,” Mr Horomia said.

“The declaration also implies that indigenous people should have a right of veto over parliamentary law-making.”  The government strongly supports the full and active engagement of indigenous people in democratic decision-making processes. But these articles imply different classes of citizenship, where indigenous peoples have veto rights not held by others, Mr Horomia said.

“Indigenous rights in New Zealand are of profound importance.  The Treaty of Waitangi is the founding document of this country and we have an unparalleled system for redress. Nearly 40 per cent of New Zealand fishing quota is owned by Maori and claims to over half of the country’s land area have been settled.   “We also have some of the most extensive consultation mechanisms in the world, where the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, including the principle of informed consent, are enshrined in resource management law. “The Labour-led government is focused on pursuing goals which achieve real results for real people.

It’s about time the Mâori Party got its head out of the clouds and focused on achieving some real milestones, rather than pie-in-the-sky talk which won’t make a jot of difference in our peoples’ lives.”

I HAVE DISECTED THE MAIN POINTS OF HOROMIA’S PARLIAMENTARY SPEECH AS FOLLOWS:- Carol Sakey   https://wakeupnz.org

I HAVE DESECTED THIS SPEECH AND THESE ARE THE FOLLOWING POINTS:- (Carol Sakey)

The Mâori Party is full of hollow talk over the government’s decision not to support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, says Mâori Affairs Minister Parekura Horomia.

Contrary to a number of misleading claims by the party’s co-leaders today, the New Zealand government did not vote against a move at the United Nations to outlaw discrimination against indigenous peoples.   “Nor does the government accept Tariana Turia’s ridiculous claim that this government believes indigenous people are “ sub-human with only sub-human rights” – which I, and no doubt my Mâori caucus colleagues, frankly find offensive.”

The declaration adopted in the UN yesterday is in effect a wish list which fails to bind states to any of its provisions, Mr Horomia said.  “This means it is toothless. I’m actually more than a little surprised the Mâori Party is prepared to back something which effectively offers indigenous peoples no more than aspirational statements.”

Our government has worked extremely hard over a number of years to help forge a declaration which protects and promotes the rights of indigenous peoples in a meaningful way – and which states could actually implement, Mr Horomia said.

“The declaration adopted does neither and while we are proud of our efforts, we are deeply disappointed with the final result which we could not support.  “There are four provisions we have problems with, which make the declaration fundamentally incompatible with New Zealand’s constitutional and legal arrangements and established Treaty settlement policy.”

Article 26 of the Declaration states that indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. For New Zealand this covers potentially the entire country.   “It appears to require recognition of rights to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens, both indigenous and non-indigenous. This ignores contemporary reality and would be impossible to implement,” Mr Horomia said.

“The declaration also implies that indigenous people should have a right of veto over parliamentary law-making.”  The government strongly supports the full and active engagement of indigenous people in democratic decision-making processes. But these articles imply different classes of citizenship, where indigenous peoples have veto rights not held by others, Mr Horomia said.

“Indigenous rights in New Zealand are of profound importance.  The Treaty of Waitangi is the founding document of this country and we have an unparalleled system for redress. Nearly 40 per cent of New Zealand fishing quota is owned by Maori and claims to over half of the country’s land area have been settled.   “We also have some of the most extensive consultation mechanisms in the world, where the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, including the principle of informed consent, are enshrined in resource management law. “The Labour-led government is focused on pursuing goals which achieve real results for real people.

It’s about time the Mâori Party got its head out of the clouds and focused on achieving some real milestones, rather than pie-in-the-sky talk which won’t make a jot of difference in our peoples’ lives.”

 

I HAVE ALSO NOTED FROM HOROMIA’S 2007 PARLIAMENTARY SPEECH IN PARLIAMENT:- Of course being a Labour MP he would applaud the Labour Party. Horomia was also a key player in planning, promoting the ‘Foreshore &Seabed Act.  He also mentioned in this speech that the NZ Government had helped develop the UN Declaration Rights of Indigenous Peoples during the past 20 plus years  with the United Nations (since 1990). Crown partnership Iwi.. was never documented within Treaty Of Waitangi 1840.

 

I HAVE ALSO NOTED SOME OF THE KEY WORDS USED IN HOROMIA’S PARLIAMENTRY SPEECH:-

• ‘INDIGENOUS’- We are, each one of us ‘Indigenous’. Indigenous is derived from the new Latin word ‘Indigenus’ and the old Latin word ‘Indigene’.   ‘Indu’ meaning-within, in and ‘Gignere’ meaning ‘BEGET’ which means To produce, give birth.
• ‘WHENUA (From the Maori Dictionary & Govt National Library).  ‘Whenua’ meaning :- Born of the land, Country, Nation,State, Ground, Terrirtorial Domain and Placenta-after birth
• ‘TANGATA’ meaning:- People, Men, Persons, Human beings, Individual, At home, Comfortable-Established, Adapted, Acclimatised, Local people, Hosts, Born of the land, Peoples whose ancestors lived here before. (Take your pick I am sure you will fit into one or more of these categories.

 

 NOTE:  Parekura  Horomia  Born 9th November 1950 –Died 29^th April 2013.   New Zealand Labour Party politician who served as Minister of Māori Affairs between 2000 and 2008.

Between 10 December 1999-26 July 2003; he was  the Associate Minister of Employment                                                                                                       Between 2000 and 2008 the  Minister Of Maori Affairs

Horomia had been told by another prominent Maori figure “You create your own shadow, and it will be a massive one.” Horomia  was born in Tolago Bay. He had seven brothers and sisters..

He started his working life as a manual labourer and then a Printer in the newspaper industry. Later he became involved in the Dept Of Labours East Coast schemes.

His hard work led him to be appointed to supervisory positions then he went from there to being the General Manager of the ‘Community Employment Group (1992)

In 2002 Dover Samuels was forced to step down as Minister Of Maori Affairs after criminal allegations we made against him.. Horomia was appointed in Dover Samuels place.

Samuels was later cleared of the allegations against him however it was decided Horomia would retain the Maori Affairs portfolio

Horomia was overweight for much of his life. He talked about his health battles and tried to lose weight many times. In 2004 he went on a public diet to encourage others to do the same.^[7] He died at his home on 29 April 2013 at the age of 62.^[

 Horomia was known by many to be a kind man with a good heart, who was not shy about speaking strong words in public or in the House (Parliament)

 

Thank you for allowing me to share this information with you.

Carol Sakey  https://wakeupnz.org

FACEBOOK- Carol Sakey and Group WakeUpNZ

...