Is anyone else tired of reading the poorly-argued, carelessly punctuated words of C. Humphreys in the pages of SunLive, and in the local Western Bay of Plenty Grey Power magazine? I certainly am.
C. Humphreys, your contributions may be more engaging had your arguments any substance, rather than the panic-mongering guff you continue to offer, nor do they make much logical sense. For instance, despite the fact the Treaty of Waitangi has no constitutional legitimacy, it remains indisputably the founding compact of this country since it formalised Maori cession of ‘legal sovereignty' (as opposed to ‘political sovereignty') to the Crown, and thereby legitimates New Zealand's governmental authority (although some Maori argue such cession did not in fact occur). Simply because the Treaty does not suit your agenda, does not mean you can deny its fundamental legal and jurisprudential standing in New Zealand.
If, for example, you expect the sanctity of your property rights to be acknowledged and respected over time, you must also accept that the same normative and jurisprudential rules – not to mention moral precepts – also govern the contemporary place and application of the Treaty of Waitangi.
You also vehemently reject separatism, yet resort to a ‘Them vs. Us' rhetoric in your writing, which transparently pits the ‘Brown Peril' against 'Us Kiwis”, an attitude that is in itself wilfully divisive, not to mention ugly.
I respectfully suggest, therefore, that you invest more time investigating notions such as separatism, Apartheid, nationalism, citizenship, and liberty before using them to bolster your personal prejudices.

Kate MacIntyre, Wellington.