Love it Gary.

Posted on 19-07-2013 14:48 | By robin bell

For what its worth I agree with all you say.Problem is the disgruntled minority want it all. Robin Bell.

Good Grief Gary

Posted on 19-07-2013 17:16 | By Mike Kuipers von Lande

Are you reading from the fanciful book of history again? Maori decimated the forests of the NZ attempting to drive out animals like the Moa for slaughter. It has been shown that they repeatedly burned off huge tracts in this way. Maori did not own any part of the country - they squatted on what ever piece they could defend from their marauding relatives -eat or be eaten. They eagerly sold land they didn't own or occupy and then attacked and slaughtered those who had bought it so they could sell it again. They drifted here by accident and almost certainly killed off others who were here before them

M .K.von L.

Posted on 19-07-2013 20:02 | By robin bell

You are a bitter and twisted man.Your pathetic racism has no place in modern NZ.Why not do us all a favour and drop your rediculous attempts at reverse psychology.Perhaps then you will wake up with a smile on your face. Robin Bell.

Ha ha Mr Bell

Posted on 21-07-2013 08:05 | By Mike Kuipers von Lande

As soon as facts and the truth are put in your face you react with abuse and vitriol. Typical of your type Mr. Bell. Grow up and find some integrity

MIKE NEVER PRODUCES CREDIBLE EVIDENCE

Posted on 21-07-2013 11:39 | By Peter Dey

Mike von Lande's claims are not supported by credible evidence. When Mike says that Maori did not own New Zealand he is contradicted by "Twisting the Treaty". Its authors point out that The British Government, at the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, accepted that Maori owned new Zealand. "Twisting the Treaty" also accepts that there were no people here before Maori arrived. Maori did not kill off anybody. Maori did not decimate the forests of New Zealand. Mike von Lande can produce no evidence to prove that they did.

M. K. von L.

Posted on 21-07-2013 12:54 | By robin bell

I stand by my comment. When it comes to vitriole you take the cake. I refer you to your own comments.Your reliance on books like Twisting the Treaty to back up your own racism simply compounds the ignorance you and your fellow anti Maori campaingers show.That you have a total disregard for the self respect and dignity of the current generation of Maori is a shame on you.Like all ultra right wing extremists your day is done.At least while your having a crack at me your leaving someone else alone.Keep smiling. Robin Bell.

Oh Dear Mr Dey

Posted on 21-07-2013 13:50 | By Mike Kuipers von Lande

Twisting the Treaty does not accept that Maori owned all of NZ. Maori occupied small areas of the country and as individual tribes only held what they could defend and take by force from their neighbour. They had no concept or definition of ownership. Twisting the Treaty also does not accept that Maori were here first. It is clear that they were not and Maori themselves confirmed this. Better stop the lies Peter or the authors may sue you for lies and defamation.

Forest decimation

Posted on 21-07-2013 13:56 | By Mike Kuipers von Lande

As for your ignorance of historical burning, you need to speak with DOC and those who undertook research into pre-recorded evidence of burning. They showed that Maori regularly and systematically burned off huge tracts of forest, especially in the South Island to flush out Moa and other prey they drove to extinction. Multiple ash layers dating to the time of Maori occupation support this. It is the reason why the entire high country of the South Island was and remains denuded of forest. Please stop the denial.

MAORI OWNED NEW ZEALAND

Posted on 21-07-2013 20:42 | By Peter Dey

Mike von Lande needs to refer to page 32 of "Twisting the Treaty". In 1840 William Hobson was told by the British Government not to seize the islands of New Zealand unless the consent of Maori was first obtained. Obviously the British accepted that Maori owned New Zealand. As far as deforestation goes, until Mike produces some DOC statistics we can assume that he is again exaggerating without any credible evidence to support his claim.

Posted on 21-07-2013 20:48 | By Peter Dey

Mike von Lande should refer to page 296 of "Twisting the Treaty" where the authors accept the latest scientific evidence that Maori were the first settlers in New Zealand and that there were no other people settled here before Maori arrived.

@ Peter Dey

Posted on 21-07-2013 22:23 | By Captain Sensible

I think you are twisting "Twisting The Treaty"!! Do you really need to resort to a fake book review? Admit it....you got so angry reading it, confronted with evidence upon more evidence that your long held view of history through rose tinted glasses was not even close, that you threw it away and decided to make up a few porkies to retain some credibility.

Twisting the Truth.

Posted on 22-07-2013 13:14 | By robin bell

Your at it again Mike.D.O.C nor anyone else has shown conclusively what historical bushfires were started by Maori.No doubt some were but you have no proof of the devastation you accuse them of.In any event pollen records show that most of the damage occured before Maori could have possibly been responsible for.Of course it fits your agenda to make such claims.You continue to post your rediculous unproven bias in the hope of influencing other people.You underestimate peoples inteligence.Robin Bell.

MAORI ORIGINALLY OWNED ALL OF NEW ZEALAND

Posted on 22-07-2013 15:27 | By Peter Dey

Mike von Lande syas that Maori were only squatters and did not own any part of the country. This is half-truth because he is talking about pre-European custom. All land settled by Europeans in New Zealand was purchased from Maori. If the only way for Europeans to get land was to buy it from Maori then Maori owned the whole of New Zealand. What Mike von Lande writes does not make sense. He continues to try and deceive people with half-truth and never backs up his claims with credible evidence.

MAORI WERE HERE FIRST

Posted on 22-07-2013 16:59 | By Peter Dey

Mike von Lande should read page 296 of "Twisting the Treaty". The authors have science degrees and they accept the scientific evidence of Janet Wilmshurst. Janet Wilmshurst's radiocarbon evidence(2011) shows clearly thast Maori were the first settlers in New Zealand and that there were no people settled in New Zealand before Maori arrived. Maori oral stories are just stories that have been refuted by modern science.

Night and Dey

Posted on 22-07-2013 18:36 | By Mike Kuipers von Lande

Now Mr. Dey says that Maori traditions and stories about pre-Maori inhabitants are just nonsense and should be ignored because science has not proved them right. Funny though that when proper records DO prove that Maori stories about land theft ARE rubbish, he contorts a back flip and states that in these cases Maori stories MUST be believed. Come now Mr Dey. If you were at school your report card would say MUST DO BETTER.

SETTLEMENT EVIDENCE IS MORE THAN STORIES

Posted on 22-07-2013 20:02 | By Peter Dey

Mike von Lande is confused to say that oral stories from hundreds of years ago are the same as oral and written evidence of Government land theft since 1840. Treaty settlements are justified by written and oral personal and Government evidence. There are no records that prove that Maori stories about land theft are rubbish. This is another wild claim from Mike von Lande that is unsupported by credible evidence.

Dey is night

Posted on 22-07-2013 21:59 | By Mike Kuipers von Lande

Firstly Mr. Dey if even your attempt at getting my name right constantly ends in disaster what hope is there for the rest? You would be well aware that the Waitangi Tribunal was staffed with those known to work hand in glove with the fraudsters and directed to find for them no matter what. Government records were ordered suppressed and non-admissible. No one appeared for the defence. This hopelessly biased court was ordered to listen only to the sob stories as invented and embellished by latter day partly related descendants and find in favour of them. Resources and money was then taken from the remainder of the population and given to these thieves. Are you surprised that anger is growing about this in the general population as lives are lost and futures are blighted through the lack of resources now available to all?

@ Peter Dey

Posted on 23-07-2013 08:41 | By Captain Sensible

Why are you so afraid of admitting that maori are not indigenous? Even David Rankin, a Ngapui chief, has come to the conclusion after sifting through the evidence, that maori are not indigenous. When confronted with the evidence, it's hard to think otherwise.

MAORI DECIMATED NO FORESTS

Posted on 23-07-2013 09:42 | By Peter Dey

Mike von Lande's claim that Maori decimated forests is again a wild exaggeration unsupported by credible evidence. Certainly Maori burnt some forest but nothing on the scale of European clearing of forest. Mike cannot produce DOC statistics to support his claim, and European settlers did not find decimated forests in 1840.

STILL NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE

Posted on 23-07-2013 12:55 | By Peter Dey

Mike Kuipers von Lande writes a great deal of criticism of the Waitangi Tribunal but it is all unsupported by credible evidence. Nobody has yet produced any credible evidence to support the claim that any Treaty settlement is unjustified or that any Treaty claim is fraudulent. Anti-Maori writers are angry but their anger is fuelled by misinformation.

SCIENCE PROVES MAORI ARE INDIGENOUS

Posted on 23-07-2013 13:12 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible is mistaken to accept David Rankin's view on Maori origins. David Rankin is simply passing on oral history that he has inherited. His oral history has now been shown to be just stories, not literal fact. The scientific evidence now accepted by "Twisting the Treaty"(page 296) shows clearly that Maori were the first settlers here and there was nobody here before them. Modern scientific evidence is more credible and contradicts oral stories.

No Fear here Cap

Posted on 23-07-2013 17:38 | By robin bell

Indigenous status for Maori is critically important.That is why you and your friends would deny it to them if you could.Problem for you is you have no chance.To quote the Ngapuhi nutter Rankin proves your desperation.For the umpteenth time INDIGENOUS =Autochthonal= earliest KNOWN inhabitants of a country.I can feel you wrigling through the keys of my computer. Robin Bell.

3%16%i or just feel maori

Posted on 23-07-2013 22:26 | By crazyhorse

Who cares if (part) maori are indigenous more importantly is they have a reasonable amount of maori blood, i mean not just change your name or feel maori. The leader of the (part) maori party Tariana Turia is mostly Sioux indian, she has even given talks to her own people on native matters, i went onto the Sioux tribe register, if you want to be Sioux you have to be 25% Sioux, be able to prove where you came from, and the tribe will want DNA tests done with who ever and named relatives, the tribe want this, not the government, they don't want to be ripped off by bludgers in it for a hand out. When is this going to get some thought in NZ or would this destabilize the treaty industry, can't have that.

100% Equine Nutter.

Posted on 24-07-2013 10:52 | By robin bell

You obviously care,or you wouldn't spend your life critisizing Maori. Fact is you know nothing about being Maori.Your obsession and prejudice has clouded your judgment. Tariana Turia may be part indian but she is loved and respected bycountless NZr's.Can you say the same?Idoubt it.On the subject of name changing,it seems you are too thick to see the irony in that one,CRAZYHORSE indeed.I hope you informed the Souix that you have stolen the name of a N.American hero in order to peddle your hate talk anonymously Time you and your friends grew up. Robin Bell.

TREATY SETTLEMENTS GO TO TRIBES

Posted on 24-07-2013 13:30 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse should not get uptight about amount of Maori blood. Treaty settlements go to Tribes not individuals. If Tribes distribute benefits to all Tribal descendants it has no effect on Crazyhorse at all. Tribes do not provide benefits to bludgers. They provide benefits to descendants who are involved with Tribal activities.

MISSING THE POINT

Posted on 24-07-2013 19:50 | By crazyhorse

The tribe is made up of maori members is it not, being 3%or 1/16 maori is not maori so it does matter because it determines the size and make up of that tribe,also if tax payers money is going to be used for maori education or health should they not be maori as far as providing for descendants have a look at the people of tainui blog (eraka.wordpress.com,or some other maori blogs its not trickling down to them in a hurry but you will have an excuse for that to no doubt!, i am not going to waste my time answering your apologist lap dog Bell as usual he froths at the mouth making little sense, maybe some deep breathing exercises would help?, maybe not!

@ Peter Dey

Posted on 25-07-2013 08:26 | By Captain Sensible

NZ taxpayer money and NZ land is being given to part maori for no real reason other than they signed a treaty which has been twisted and reinvented a hundred years after it was signed. This is legally not acceptable to alter a treaty into "principles" and speak of "partnership" when those words were not mentioned on the original document. Maori ceded sovereignty to the British and became equal. This ended maori cannibalism, murder, and slavery of other maori. Maori are better off now than those days as their life expectancy proves. Peter Dey, "Twisting The Treaty" is the title of a book, not a command!

ALL DESCENDANTS ARE TRIBAL MEMBERS

Posted on 25-07-2013 09:41 | By Peter Dey

Maori tribes and New Zealand law say that any descendant of a Maori is Maori regardless of percentage of ancestry. So 3% or 1/16 Maori is Maori. The new Prince George has less than 1% Royal ancestry but he is still Royal. The top priority for Maori tribal resources has to be Tribal survival. This means reinvestment in Tribal resources, and investment in education for future generations. People who complain about not getting trickle down are being unrealistic. They selfishly want to sacrifice long term survival for short term handouts. The point is that Tribes accept all descendants as equal regardless of percentage of ancestry.

treaty

Posted on 25-07-2013 10:39 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible is wrong to say that the Treaty has been twisted and reinvented. Nobody has produced credible evidence that this has happened. We have two official versions of the Treaty, an English version and a Maori version. The Principles of the Treaty are simply the combination of these two versions. In law we cannot refer to "The Treaty" because there are two Treaties. This is not twisting or reinventing. We are still using the original official versions, so nothing has been reinvented. Treaty settlements are not giveaways. They are compensation for established injustice.

PRINCE GEORGE?????

Posted on 25-07-2013 11:37 | By crazyhorse

Oh thank you!! that reply answers all my questions and some, as for tribal survival, are not the poor (part)maori people up north or scattered around NZ part of some tribe, if that tribe has money, should its responsibility not be to help and support those people, or invest that money back into business like tainui and ngai tahu who don't even pay income tax, just gst, they run as charitable trusts,but its fine the tax payer coughs up any way while people like the tongan Tuku Morgan and others live high on the hog. Now you have straightened me out on that maybe we can get back to fraud or the abuse of position, lets talk about the constitutional review, please explain why we need a review in the first place, but, more importantly how is it deemed fair and neutral with the member make up, it has 12 people, non (part) maori make up about 85% of NZ, how is it then we have 5 (part) maori on there 4 openly activists and 1 ex ngai tahu negotiator, this is the same as the treaty industry , loaded to the max on 1 side, i can't wait for your reply on this.

Here we go again.!

Posted on 25-07-2013 11:44 | By robin bell

The so called Captain and his First Mate Crazyhorse are stuck hard and fast in the quagmire of thier prejudice.The Treaty is in and of itself a partnership.Whakapapa determines Iwi membership.The monies paid to Iwi is compensation for stolen land.Trickle down is Iwi business no one elses.It may be unfortunate for you,but you should perhaps be blaming your ancestors rather than Maori.Its worth pointing out that less than one tenth of one percent of gov't spending over the last ten years has gone on settlements.If you guys have anything new to offer lets hear it,otherwise I suggest you stop insulting Maori.RobinBell.

Ahh legislation!!

Posted on 25-07-2013 15:04 | By crazyhorse

Oh you must be talking about the maori affairs amendment 1974 led by Matiu Rata. The wording of the amendment is, (maori today are a people with maori ancestry, as one sees in legislation). The meaning of that is they are a people on paper ,and all this 1 year before the waitangi tribunal kick started the grievance industry,i gota give it to you fellas your cunning,if the Tiriti o Waitangi goes through in to a written constitution your job will be done,(APARTEID STATE OF NEWZEALAND) ain't life grand?????

Crazy horse not so crazy

Posted on 25-07-2013 16:28 | By YOGI BEAR

ANZ for short and no avoiding that fate after that.

@ Robin Bell

Posted on 25-07-2013 18:42 | By Captain Sensible

Where does it say in the treaty, the word "partnership"? To save you the time in looking, I can tell you the treaty does not mention the word 'partnership'. Then tell me if it was a partnership, where it says anything about an equal partnership. I am a taxpayer so am I an equal partner with the IRD? The treaty ceded sovereignty to the crown and all the maori chiefs understood that as was confirmed at the Kohimarama meeting in 1852. It gave maori equality with British citizens, not with the crown. Please read again and tell me where I am wrong.

Crazy aint the word.

Posted on 25-07-2013 20:12 | By robin bell

You keep trotting out the names of high profile Maori.I suppose you think some people will react unfavourably.You underestimate people.Allof the ones you mention were or are tireless workers for thier people,they deserve credit not your criticism.That you find it offensive is more a reflection on your inadequacy than on them. using the word Apartheid to predict NZs future is further evidence of your collective paranoia.As for some Iwi using the Pakeha invention of Charitable Trusts,that simply puts them alongside the Pakeha.Not even you would deny them that privelige or would you?The so called grievance industry is yet another attempt to denigrate Maori.It is nothing more than the inevitable result of generations of systematic theft by the Crown.Maori have known this since 1840,not 1974.Irefer you to just one recent example,Raglan,calculated theft,no other words for it.Remember the vitriolic denegration of Eve Rickard and her whanau by the Press and some Pakeha I do,and so do all fair minded Kiwis.If you dont remember i will gladly fill you in on the detail.I know it is difficult to overcome the indoctrination you have suffered from birth,but Ican assure you there are no bogeymen out there A nice apology to all the Maori people you have insulted would be a good start to your rehabilitation. Robin Bell.

A TWO PARTY AGREEMENT IS A PARTNERSHIP

Posted on 25-07-2013 23:28 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible points out that the Treaty does not mention "partnership", but it does not have to. The Treaty was signed by two parties, Crown and Maori, so setting up a partnership. Not having the word "partnership" in the Treaty makes no difference. The Crown promised to protect Maori land, estates, forests, and fisheries. The honouring of thst promise requires a partnership between the Crown and Maori. Governments now recognise that if they want to avoid furhter injustice to Maori, then Maori should be treated as partners on many, not all, issues rather than powerless subjects as in the past. It is interesting that the Kohimarama Conference in 1852 was asked to condemn the "tino rangatiratanga" policy of the Kingitanga but refused to do so. They accepted that "tino rangatiratanga" was complementary to, not an attack on, Pakeha government.

Robin Bell

Posted on 26-07-2013 07:15 | By Plonker

There is a "Grievance Industry" that costs NZ about $1.5bn a year, "Apartheid" is an apt word to use here as that simply means that a minority has priviledge over the majority with for example facilities, money, etc that is not available to others based on the colour of skin, race, or whatever. When for example Maori automatically have seats in parliament is just that. I am sure you can even see that. Crazyhorse has got it all right, so please do catch up.

Partnership?

Posted on 26-07-2013 09:10 | By The Master

Pete, we have already had a discussion and you lost about the correct treaty, the "REAL" one does not meantion "land, estates, forests, and fisheries ..." simply because that was not what the treaty was about. Maori were seeking the help of the Queen/settlers to avoid self destruction. At no time did protect Maori "land" come into that either as Maori were the seven known ethnic group to arrrive in NZ and had no concept of "ownership" of land. The English only brought that concept to the table. Add to that also that Maori were only occupying a small number of isolated pockets of land scatered across the North Island, Maori on ventured to the South Island when for example the Tainui raided the Naki area, the survivors raced off toteh SI to escape ending up in the cooking pot. Funny thing was that ended up as a treaty claim for a "misdeed" imposed by the English/Crown, isnt it interestign how history got re-written about that then by the time the Waitangi Tribunal happened.

AHH Mr Bell

Posted on 26-07-2013 11:18 | By crazyhorse

Perhaps you could name a few non (part) maori corporations using charitable trusts as a tax dodge,ngai tahu and Tainui both work under the guise of charities, 2 of their business ventures, Fairy springs Rotorua, Shot over jet Queenstown, these are multi million dollar businesses, check on these all available on the NZ charities register Tainui are buying businesses and land all over the Waikato, even looking at a hotel in Tauranga, how is a non (part) maori business supposed to compete with this or even a large non (part) corporation, we are talking about billions of dollars that should be in treasury, maybe help the health system employ more police, build more public housing, but no they are to SPECIAL!!! As usual always a pleasure to correspond with you Mr Bell.

Another Example Mr Bell

Posted on 26-07-2013 12:16 | By crazyhorse

I did not denigrate any high profile (part) maori people, i was simply pointing out, until 1974 one year before the Waitangi tribunal was put together to be maori you had to be half cast, knowing in a few years there would not be any maori with that much blood they changed the rules, hence the maori affairs amendment 1974, i was merely pointing out another example of a a change in policy that will effect NZ for ever, the newzealand people were not aware of this till it was law,YAY DEMOCRACY NZ STYLE.

NOBODY HAS DISPROVED THE OFFICIAL ENGLISH TREATY

Posted on 26-07-2013 12:42 | By Peter Dey

The Master does not remember correctly that the official English version of the Treaty of Waitangi was sent by Governor Hobson to his superiors on February 5-6 1840. This is recorded in British Colonial Office records. So the official English version is not false. So Maori were promised protection of their lands, estates, forests, and fisheries. Also Maori owned all of New Zealand because all land purchased was purchased from Maori.

APARTHEID IS TOTAL CONTROL BY A MINORITY

Posted on 26-07-2013 13:27 | By Peter Dey

Plonker is misusing the word "Apartheid". In South Africa, where the word originated, it meant government and total control of the majority black population by a small white minority. In New Zealand the Pakeha majority control Parliament, all Government departments, police, and army. Describing special provisions for Maori as apartheid is completely ignorant and an insult to South Africans who fought against apartheid.

APARTHEID DEY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted on 26-07-2013 15:13 | By crazyhorse

APARTHEID promotes separate development according to race,an official policy for legal, political, economic development aimed at one race. Any system that separates people according to race, that from the dictionary Dey, even your lap dog Bell will be able to find that.

APARTHEID IS SEGREGATION

Posted on 26-07-2013 16:37 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse is again presenting half-truth when he says that APARTHEID promotes separate development according to race,an official policy for legal, political, economic development aimed at one race. He leaves out the fact that definitions of apartheid also include that it involves segregation. Segregation means keeping different racial groups physically separate. There is no way that anybody in New Zealand is proposing segregation and Maori (15%) certainly could not force it on Pakeha (85%), so anti-Maori writers should stop using the word apartheid about New Zealand.

Partnership Bell

Posted on 26-07-2013 17:23 | By crazyhorse

The Waitangi tribunal is set up for claims against the crown from(part) maori, we cannot claim against them, if only one side can claim, legally its not a partnership, look it up (GOOGLE IT) your like spinning tops Dey and Bell spinning faster but in ever decreasing circles.

Naughty Horse.

Posted on 26-07-2013 20:28 | By robin bell

You are "Twisting the Truth" again, Apartheid as practised in South Africa was as Peter Dey explains.You need to open your mind.In 1974 law imposed on Maori may have changed but being Maori didn't.Your PERCENTAGE game won't work.Your paranoia is unfounded.Legislation in this instance can only ever be a guide line.Maori are here rights and all.With regard to your challenge on Maori using the Pakeha device of Charitable Trusts THE I.R.D. polices these organisations very closely.I will gladly provide the names of two,I have personally traded with,One proviso you put your your real name on your next comment.Acknowledge the theft of Maori land at Raglan,and quit your insulting references to "Part Maori"That seems like a good Bronco busting deal to me. Robin Bell.

segragation DEY!!

Posted on 26-07-2013 20:41 | By crazyhorse

As in(part) maori only sports teams, tv, health, education, is that what you mean??????????

untitled

Posted on 26-07-2013 20:47 | By Sagitarius22

I don't see anyone here oppressed in any way. No one is denied access to the same rights as any other person here. On the other hand, certain groups have historically exploited legislation at the expense of Maori who now seek justice. If we deny this access to justice is that not oppression? Or worse. I see double standards in a lot of letters, mainly from those hiding behind a nom de plume

Stubborn Mule

Posted on 26-07-2013 21:42 | By Sagitarius22

You answered your own question. The partnership is between Maori and the Crown. One can claim against the other. You can make a claim against the government too but I think it takes about 170 years to be heard. In the meantime it is important that the grievance process continue for us to truly move on as a nation. It would be irresponsible for any government to halt the process midstream. Deep down inside you know this. Sure, some of your concerns might warrant serious debate, but this medium is not the place. And serious debate requires hard evidence not just some biassed 'no-one's' commentary.

game set and match

Posted on 26-07-2013 21:58 | By Captain Sensible

Game, set and match to crazyhorse! BTW, Mr Dey says nobody has produced credible evidence that the treaty has been twisted. Actually Mr Dey a whole carefully researched book has been written on that very subject (Twisting The Treaty"). What part of this book is false?

NOBODY SAID THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL IS A PARTNERSHIP

Posted on 26-07-2013 22:19 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse is complaining about nothing when he says that the Waitangi Tribunal should be a partnership. Pakeha have always had full access to the law to resolve injustice. It has only been Maori who have received massive injustice from the Government without full access to the law. That is why the Waitangi Tribunal is set up to deal with injustice to Maori and only hears Maori claims.

Sagitarius22

Posted on 27-07-2013 09:56 | By crazyhorse

I have never denied terrible injustices had been done to some maori, or that their grievances should not be heard and dealt with,all i have been trying to say is not all claims are what they seem or the evidence used is dodgy to say the least, (no i can't prove this) but everyone here knows its true, i just can't see an end to it, some of these claims have been dealt with 5 or 6 times, there is no full and final settlement any one telling you this is pulling your leg. In 2 years time historic claims will all be finalised?????is that the end,sorry but no, contemporary claims will start, there is a couple of new claims just in the last couple of weeks in tauranga, every day you read about someone wanting something else. Its death by a thousand cuts and any one thinking this constant I WANT IT!is good for us,i mean all of us maori included, are only fooling themselves, NZ will only go forward when we look forward keep looking back and thats where you go, sorry sagitarius if that has upset you.

Lots of different names !

Posted on 27-07-2013 13:51 | By ow

How many names does peter dey go under ? I can see at least 3 He doesnt seem to argue with his own personalities tho.

SEGREGATION MEANS FORCED TO RESIDE SEPARATELY

Posted on 27-07-2013 20:53 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse, when dictionaries describe apartheid as segregation of races they mean forcing different races to live separately. No one in New Zealand intends to bring in apartheid or could bring in apartheid. Writers should stop talking about apartheid in new Zealand. Captain Sensible says that "Twisting the Treaty" has evidence that the Treaty has been twisted. I can find no credible evidence of this in the book. Captain Sensible should name a page where he thinks there is some credible evidence.

Treaty was a partnership

Posted on 28-07-2013 17:25 | By Plonker

But what has happened is that things have changed, what was truth in 1840, what was well intended to save Maori from themselves has all got lot in the treaty industry in Wellington. Peter's various personalities here show that.

Segregation

Posted on 28-07-2013 17:28 | By Plonker

Apartheid is the correct term to use Peter, the meaning is a little bit wider than just where one lives. A good example is where there is colour based preference. The education departments funding for Maori schools has a different criteria that non-Maori schools, basically non-Maori schools have a budget and that is it, the rest is like a free-for-all.

UNITED NATIONS DEFINITION OF APARTHEID

Posted on 28-07-2013 22:59 | By Peter Dey

I stand corrected. Apartheid does not have to involve segregation although most definitions say it does and it did when it was Government policy in South Africa. The United Nations definition of apartheid (1973) is "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them." Nothing currently being proposed or done in New Zealand is apartheid. People should stop using the word apartheid about New Zealand.

Plonger

Posted on 29-07-2013 11:16 | By crazyhorse

Partnership in legal terms means equal, both parties treated the same, that does not apply in Newzealand certainly not in the treaty industry, we cannot claim against maori, only maori can claim against kiwi, Dey will say we can by going to the government and lodging a claim or complaint, ask the Titfords what happened when there land was illegally taken from them, google Titfords land confiscation, warning it does not make pleasant reading, then decide for your self if we are in a (PARTNERSHIP)

Peter.

Posted on 29-07-2013 12:31 | By robin bell

The GOBBLEDEGOOK,written by Plonker(great name)puts every thing into perspective you realy have to wonder what planet they live on. Robin Bell.

A question for Peter Dey

Posted on 29-07-2013 13:07 | By Papamoaner

Since you clearly have an in-depth knowledge of these matters, I am wondering if you can provide a tangible meaning of the terms "Honky" and "Redneck" for me. They are clearly special terms because maori use them with impunity. (I don't accuse you of usage). Usage of alternative words to describe maori, can result in a complaint of racism, but it seems that "Honky" and "Redneck" can be used freely at will, including by high profile quasi-politicians, (ie; listies). I'm happy to define a "Listie" for you should you require it, but meanwhile, please define "Honky" and "Redneck"

Peter Dey

Posted on 29-07-2013 13:55 | By YOGI BEAR

Looks like you have not learnt anything from previous debates here online, before you had no answer to the obvious, but remained attached to your beliefs. However in doing so and trying to defend the "undefendable" you were actually confirming as right what you previous said was wrong? How long will it take to get back to that point in the debate ... would save a lot of time Peter.

OW

Posted on 29-07-2013 15:13 | By YOGI BEAR

Yeah I see what you mean about the names and differences shown, also clear that Peter does argue with himself as on other pages he is saying the opposite to here. Guess depends with side of the bed you fall out of.

Peter Dey.

Posted on 30-07-2013 09:34 | By robin bell

Well done Peter,you have them totally BAMBOOZLED.Now come the personal attacks and insults.Fact is they have nothing provable to offer.Keep up the good work.Robin Bell.

Crazy Horse

Posted on 30-07-2013 09:56 | By YOGI BEAR

Yeah mate that sums it up, double standards for sure. If the shoe fits wear it ...

A PARTNERSHIP IS WHEN PARTIES AGREE TO COOPERATE

Posted on 30-07-2013 14:37 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse is wrong to say that partnership means equal. Wikipedia says that a partnership is when two parties agree to cooperate. The Treaty of Waitangi is most definitely a partnership agreement. The word partnership does not have to appear in the Treaty. Gary Lovell, writer of the original letter, deserves congratulations for pointing out that Maori have waited for almost 173 years for justice over land stolen from them, and that they should be applauded not begrudged for willingly accepting what has been returned, even though it is a very small part of what they lost.

Planet Bongo Peter

Posted on 30-07-2013 16:11 | By YOGI BEAR

Now me thinks you are "seeing" the return of the fairies in the mountains again. Partnerships are meant to be joint things but when 94% of the population is deliberately excluded from "partnership" matters then 94% of the people tend to get a bit grumpy about it and that is exactly what you are seeing Peter. Comprend -o- mondo Peter?

Who agreed to cooperate

Posted on 30-07-2013 19:42 | By crazyhorse

Dey you answered your own question, when two parties agree to cooperate! every poll taken in the last 10 years has shown 70 to 85% of kiwi disagree, they don't want to cooperate. sick and tired of maori favouritism, at the moment its the tail wagging the dog,the maori party only got 31000 votes to nationals 1,058,636 but we are looking at changes that will effect NZ for ever and are irreversible as in the (constitutional review!!), NO, we don't want to cooperate, end of story unless its Robys turn to have a crack.

CRAZYHORSE YOUR CONCERN IS UNDERSTANDABLE

Posted on 30-07-2013 21:50 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse, polls show that a high percentage of kiwis are unhappy about race relations and think there is favouritism toward Maori. I can not find recent poll figures but 50% to 75% who think this seems about right. My point is that a great deal of this anti-Maori attitude is fed by misinformation. Some of this misinformation is that Maori Treaty claims will go on forever, that settlements are excessive, that Maori leaders are ripping off settlement money, that the Treaty does not promise Maori their forests and fisheries, that Maori are not indigenous, that Maori want separate development; that greater recognition of Maori culture is making Pakeha into second class citizens, that taonga means only physical objects, that Maori now no longer represent the Maori race of 1840, that land confiscation was justified because Maori were rebelling, and that Treaty settlements are a fraud. If people find that all of these are misinformation then views will change.

UNDERSTANDABLE IS MY CONCERN

Posted on 31-07-2013 10:25 | By crazyhorse

Dey! knows polls show that a high percentage of kiwis are unhappy about race relations and favouritism toward Maori. recent poll figures show 75% to 90% against said favouritism so this seems about right. My point is that a great deal of this anti-Maori attitude is completely warranted . polls show people (KNOW)!! Maori Treaty claims will go on forever, that settlements are excessive, that Maori leaders are ripping off settlement money, that the Treaty does not promise Maori their forests and fisheries, that Maori are not indigenous, that Maori want separate development; that greater recognition of Maori culture is making Pakeha into second class citizens, that taonga means only physical objects, that Maori now no longer represent the Maori race of 1840, that land confiscation was justified because Maori were rebelling, and that Treaty settlements are a fraud. If GOV'T! find that all of these examples are based on what the average kiwi thinks and knows (THEN, ONLY THEN WILL THINGS CHANGE!!)

Having a Crack.

Posted on 31-07-2013 12:37 | By robin bell

Crazyhorse you are frustrated along with millions of others woldwide.The Maori settlement process may have come at a bad time but it had to come.It will pass and will fade to a memory and a chuckle.My advice is stop reading all the conspiracy crap and start listening to people like Peter.The Constitutional Review is just that,a review. My guess is nothing will change.Cast your mind to the probable repercusions both national and International ifyou deny Maori thier rights.

Another Example of Democracy NZ Style

Posted on 31-07-2013 12:53 | By crazyhorse

Watch this guy tell us we need to change the North and South islands names and explain democracy doesn't come into it!! Just in case you didn't see it on breakfast tv. http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/naming-decision-made-nz-s-islands-5523259/video

Peter not understandoing

Posted on 31-07-2013 13:25 | By YOGI BEAR

I think you will find that the vast majority of NZers realize exactly what is going on especially as more and more information comes out that clearly shows the creative claims, that they shall we say have been "tweaked" to enhance the claims. That no one can challenge the claims made or even know about them until "settled" that is no ratification that they are real. As for the polls lets say that 70-80% of the 90% odd not on the feasting mode here can see through it for what it is. They say this lot of claims is the "Full and Final" but Peter do you know that this is the perhaps seventh time that has happened in the last 140 odd years. Some are claiming again over and over the same things, so forgive me and most NZ public for feeling a little bit aggrieved about it all, it is of course perfectly understandable. If you then feel like people are getting a bit angry towards the Maori claimants because of that then that is about time. If you think that is "racist" then that is typical answer when there is no "real" answer to justify what your co-horts are doing>

SOMEWHERE OVER THE RAINBOW

Posted on 31-07-2013 19:29 | By CONDOR

85% vs 15% that's a no brainer Messrs Bell&Dey.

REMEMBER DON BRASH HAD NO HARD EVIDENCE

Posted on 31-07-2013 21:45 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR, crazyhorse, and Plonker should remember that Don Brash made a famous speech full of the same anti-Maori ideas that you people are presenting. He got an immediate lift in the political polls. Then he was asked to justify his comments with hard evidence. He could not produce any hard evidence, just like anti-Maori writers in this column. As soon as the public found that he was mouthing without producing hard evidence his poll rating dropped back again. Politicians and governments take notice of hard evidence not mouthing.

STICK TO COMMENTS SUPPORTED WITH HARD EVIDENCE

Posted on 31-07-2013 22:09 | By Peter Dey

Anti-Maori writers should stick to writing only comments that they can justify with hard evidence. Then we would see that their concerns are not real but just imaginary.

Condor

Posted on 01-08-2013 03:23 | By Crash test dummies

You are wrong, part Maori are 7%, so that is 93%. But of course need then apply the average Maori blood % of 1/12th leave 0 6% on the real deal here.

When the

Posted on 01-08-2013 11:19 | By YOGI BEAR

No one is denying "Maori rights" the issue is that this would be "round 7" in some cases, other claims are a little shall we say obscure and creative to say the least. So listening to Peter Dey is sort of good in that it typifies the wayward thinking, it also tells us all how corrupt the whole system is, how it has polluted the minds of the weak and how gullible they really are.

Fairy land and fairy people ...

Posted on 01-08-2013 11:37 | By YOGI BEAR

Condor you have been way to generous, the actual proportions are around 94% and 6% but of that 6% how purport to be Maori there is not one who is even a 1/2 blood. The average would be around 1/10th, many of course are much less than this. The real deal here is that the Maori Affairs Act had to be amended to keep the gravy train going as there were virtually no "real" Maori left. But the claims keep coming ever faster.

Uneducated Bigots

Posted on 01-08-2013 16:26 | By Stricker

It seems to me that the majority of the people posting comments on here need to re-educate themselves in what the treaty actually means rather than take your ill informed self rightous opinions and expect Maori to shut up. If your feeble minds can read the information provided in this document then perhaps you can see why Maori feel so unjustly treated and though you perceive it as favourtisim, it is in fact NOT even the United Nations has agreed on many occasions to present day that Maori have are being unjustly treated. http://nwo.org.nz/files/QandA.pdf If you can not read this article due to your own lack of want then consider yourself part of the ignorant population New Zealand unfortunately has the pleasure of habouring.

Sorry Ass Apologist

Posted on 01-08-2013 20:38 | By crazyhorse

Another campaigner for people on paper, please point out in this DOCUMENT??!!??!! WHERE IT SAYS EVERYONE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY IS TO BE SECOND CLASS CITIZENS,special education, health, tv, sports teams, seats on council and seats on anything else where there is a bit of (KOHA)!!!!!!!

Striker mess ehre

Posted on 02-08-2013 10:16 | By YOGI BEAR

One sided garbage, yes can read it, but all of it is half baked. No different to the dribble that Peter Dey repeats here also, if all opinion and views based on fact were included only then 99.9% would disappear forever.

Just another..

Posted on 02-08-2013 11:07 | By kiwigrunt

"Divide and Conquer" issue that the govt and extremists love to keep our attention focused elsewhere....

Rather than look stupid read the document!

Posted on 02-08-2013 12:51 | By Stricker

Crazyhorse.... how about you read the document before making another ill educated opinion on something you know very little about. For the United Nations to step in and say Maori suffer from racial discrimination and unfair treatment which is clearly stated in said document shows that the world is watching and your ignorant reaction due to your poor education on such matters is proof. Again for those who would like to educate themselves before making comments which look show such lacking in education, read the following document, it will help clear up a few issues. http://nwo.org.nz/files/QandA.pdf

RE Stricker

Posted on 02-08-2013 16:18 | By kb

United nations ,on the outside looking in and believing what paperwork put in front of them.I'm born and bred kiwi and see whats actually going on.The only ones letting the poorer maori down ,is the greedy rich maori and iwi.

MARXIST DRIBBLE

Posted on 02-08-2013 16:55 | By crazyhorse

Ah yes the dribble sent by our pinko marxist human rights commissioner to the UN. Joris De Bres sent a letter of how terribly (part) maori were treated in Nz, obviously juiced up a tad, as you do when there is no evidence to back you up, funny how all the treaty troughers and apologists kissed this guys ass every chance they got but dame Susan Devoy has had nothing but negative spin from same sad bunch,Joris De Bres was a joke even by your standards and the UN isn't far behind with whats happening around the world that they are engaged in so sorry my comment stands,by the way don't know Robin Bell do you?,he is the man for BULL like this get his view!.

Stricker

Posted on 02-08-2013 16:56 | By YOGI BEAR

Read the document, yes you look stupid now and I can see why to, enjoy.

PAKEHA CAN NEVER BE SECOND CLASS CITIZENS

Posted on 02-08-2013 21:43 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse, the fear that Pakeha will become second class citizens in New Zealand does not make sense. Pakeha make up 85% of the population. Maori culture is only accepted into mainstream culture if enough people think it is a good idea. Some things, like formal welcomes in Maori language, irritate some Pakeha, but over time Pakeha will become comfortable with these things. Intermarriage will help. Mutual goodwill will help. Maori in New Zealand have been second class citizens since 1840. This is because we have always had Pakeha governments that have made decisions in favour of Pakeha rather than in favour of Maori. Special provisions for Maori now are designed to move Maori from second class citizens to first equal class citizens. Making Maori first class equal class citizens does not make Pakeha second class citizens.

A bucket of carrots.

Posted on 03-08-2013 12:03 | By robin bell

Apparently Crazyhorse carrots help you see in the dark,I will gladly donate if will help.Your propensity for conspiricy is all consuming.The U.N.is the only organisation that can currently stop people like you having your racist way.Of course you could always ignore them and return N.Z.to a fortress State,but I think people like Federated Farmers and other exporters may have a few complaints to make.You seem to have all the answers.Check out what happened when Japan asked Britain and the U.S to intervene and get Australia and N.Z.to drop thier whites only immigration policies.You will find that Asian people don't like racial discrimination very much and who can blame them.Robin Bell.

first class equal class citizens

Posted on 03-08-2013 12:38 | By Plonker

It always was like that, it is merely a case of what you want to "see". Wouldn't be a problem Peter if that was all that is was about, the problem is that it has gone way to far, like you can put in a treaty claim but I can not, you get twice as much money to tertiary study as me and yet you don't make the grade so the whole education system standards drop. The taxpayer of NZ is ripped off blind by creative claims made that even senior and respectable Maori leaders of the past have said "no more exist" ... you might wander why the population is being divided on racial preference grounds, you might well seek and learn what has happened in the past overseas when that happens, you have a lot more yet to learn.

UN

Posted on 03-08-2013 15:22 | By Plonker

Thanks for bring that up Robin. What an outfit it is to, the back handers and mushrooming officials all over the place is amazing. has all the look about to Tauranga Council, and the average IWI to boot.

Plink Plonk,

Posted on 03-08-2013 16:41 | By robin bell

Let's see now Plonk,In the last few months you and your friends have managed to rubbish.The U.N.succesive N.Z.governments,Tga Councils,IWI generally,The Education system,Joris De Bres,Maori acedemics,The U.S.proven N.Z.history proven Anthropology,proven Archaeology,The Treaty of Waitangi,Maori TV,Tariana Turia,Tuku Morgan and of course Peter Dey and myself.Lots more too,do you think there could be a pattern developing.Just a well meant suggestion,have a whip round with your mates (550) at last count and see what the court say's Oh! sorry they are on your list too.Robin Bell.

PLONGERS JUST ASKING QUESTIONS

Posted on 04-08-2013 19:08 | By crazyhorse

Answers need to be supplied Bobby, how does a communist marxist end up as human rights commissioner in a democratic country, who picked this person and why????, while we are at it, how did we end up with a chief justice that in her maiden speech admits she is an activist judge who said she will strike down any legislation,or gov't policy dealing with (part) maori she does not agree with,the frightening thing here is you and about another 100 people agree with her, only about 100 though!!!!

What a hard read this thread is...

Posted on 05-08-2013 15:31 | By Good day

Robin Bell and Peter Dey sound as if they have reasonable logical arguments. Its good to have someone who will challenge the outrageous (and it seems unfounded, if there is evidence thats ok then) statements on here...

SOME PAKEHA ARE HUGELY OVER-REACTING

Posted on 05-08-2013 17:36 | By Peter Dey

Plonker, the population is not being divided on racial lines. Anti-Maori campaigners who say this have not yet produced any solid evidence to back up their concerns. Maori have been second class citizens since 1840. We do have a small number of provisions for Maori to try and get them up to first equal class citizens, but the cost of this to the taxpayer is trivial. Pakeha cannot make a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal because Pakeha have never been the victims of massive legally justified injustice from the Government. Pakeha have always been able use their members of parliament to investigate Government injustice and have it corrected. Pakeha who are getting worked up over Maori progress should look objectively at facts and realise that they are hugely over-reacting.

Over Reacting?

Posted on 10-08-2013 11:36 | By Plonker

Not likely, "over-reacting" is better seen oversees obvious examples are: - NY Twin towers demolition, Somalia attacks on shipping, Hitler's opinion on Jews ... Looks to me that the commentary of others here is fair and reasonably based but certainly not "extremist" at all. Looks to me that you are just not liking the comments made and have no plausible reason to prove factually that the vast majority (if not all) of comments are wrong. You obviously don't like that situation and are resisting any effort to accept the evidenced facts of it all.

OPPOSING MAORI PROGRESS IS OVER-REACTION

Posted on 10-08-2013 19:22 | By Peter Dey

Plonker, a small number of Pakeha campaigners are bombarding us with letters, writing books, and setting up new political parties warning us against the takeover of the country by Maori. All that is actually happening is that Maori are making progress, and Governments are trying to show goodwill towards Maori by trying to honour the Treaty of Waitangi. Maori are 15% of the population. They are not talking about taking over the country. They could not if they wanted to. Letters, new political parties and books are an over-reaction.

Good one Peter

Posted on 11-08-2013 11:19 | By Plonker

Interesting you say "with letters, writing books, and setting up new political parties", that sounds like what Maori have already done decades ago, the real purpose of that is of course now being revealed. So of course Maori have not logical or scientific basis for it all so out comes the "bully" card, the "racist" card. Maori refusing to talk and make these kind of statements only adds huge merit to the whole thing like the letters and books and so on.

@ Peter Dey

Posted on 12-08-2013 13:07 | By Captain Sensible

Pity our govt can't honour the treaty with regards to the non-maori. We non-maori are racially discriminated against every single day through race based laws.

P.P.S.

Posted on 12-08-2013 20:47 | By robin bell

Pakeha Persecution Syndrome.Newly discovered in Tauranga N.Z.Those identified so far cannot be named for security reasons.They go by the nicknames,PLONKER,CAP'N SENSIBLE,THEODOROUS,CRAZYHORSE.It is believed they do not wish to be identified due to thier fear of conspiracy against them.They insist that its not that they are stupid,but that the whole country is against them,led by Maori's.One observer believes they may of caught a virus from all the conspiracy blogs they read on the internet.Who knows?Robin Bell.

JUSTIFIED COMPENSATION

Posted on 12-08-2013 22:35 | By Peter Dey

We have now had over $1 billion of justified compensation in Treaty settlements for injustice by the Government to Maori. It has taken 150 years of waiting for this injustice to be addressed. As Gary Lovell writes, Maori should be applauded for willingly accepting less than full compensation. Maori political parties and protests have been justified by the scale of the injustice toward Maori. Non-Maori have always had the opportunity to have grievances addressed by the government. They do not need to go to the Waitangi Tribunal, or set up political parties. This is not racial discrimination against non-Maori as Captain Sensible writes. It is recognition that Maori need protections that non-Maori do not, and the cost to non-Maori of special provisions for Maori is trivial, a tiny percentage of Government spending. Plonker, nobody here is being called racist.

Waitangi Claims

Posted on 13-08-2013 09:56 | By YOGI BEAR

Come on Pete you just can not be taken seriously when you say that "all claims are real" when you make a comment like that then your minimal credibility vanishes completely. Sir Apinene Hgati stated in the late 1920's that there were no claims left for Maori to make to be settled. He knew the truth of it, you don't.

Captain sensible

Posted on 13-08-2013 10:19 | By Good day

What would you base your laws on?

Crazy man

Posted on 13-08-2013 14:15 | By YOGI BEAR

Agree, the treaty is a two way thing not just a means of twisting all so as to create reasons to make claims that have no basis in fact or law.

SIR APIRANA NGATA WAS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT

Posted on 13-08-2013 16:42 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR quotes Sir Apirana Ngata saying that there were no more justified Treaty claims against the Government. But Sir Apirana Ngata was voted out of Parliament by Maori voters. They knew that Sir Apirana did not always get it right. Modern Treaty settlements have been well researched and justified. There is nothing about the local Treaty settlement that YOGHI BEAR can fault.

SIR APIRANA NGATA

Posted on 14-08-2013 03:04 | By Plonker

Of course Peter, how could I possibly have expected any answer that was any different, well Peter I didn't and you again have not disappointed.

@ Peter Dey

Posted on 14-08-2013 09:23 | By Captain Sensible

Peter, these claims have not been well researched. There is so much evidence in the books "TWISTING THE TREATY" and "THE GREAT DIVIDE" to suggest most settlements will need to be repaid back to the govt because of lies told. Just because you keep saying they were researched well does not actually make it so. What is it about equality for all that you are scared of?

@ Good Day

Posted on 14-08-2013 09:27 | By Captain Sensible

I think all laws should be based on equality and democracy. As it is now, part maori have privileges that are not available to non-maori because of race. We used to live in a democracy where everyone, regardless of race, sex, age was equal before the law. Not so now.

MAORI DID NOT RECEIVE EQUALITY AND DEMOCRACY

Posted on 14-08-2013 16:44 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible we have Treaty claims and Treaty settlements now to try and make up for Government failure to provide equality and democracy to Maori in the past. Special treatment for Maori is so trivial that non-Maori who complain about it are acting like spoiled children who have got everything but still want something that somebody else has got.

DISAGREEMENT IS NOT EVIDENCE

Posted on 14-08-2013 16:48 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible the books "Twisting the Treaty" and "The Great Divide" do not provide credible evidence of any lies made in Treaty claims. They simply select part evidence and disagree with Treaty settlements. They do not disprove any Treaty settlement. Produce a quotation that does.

A quote

Posted on 14-08-2013 21:59 | By Plonker

Sir Apene Ngati, he said "there are no more claims ... " that was back in 1927, yet look at what a rort has happened since there are 4-5 claims on the same things since and they have been ramped up to in value, creativeness and more.

race based laws

Posted on 15-08-2013 07:47 | By Captain Sensible

Tell us what part of those books is incorrect. But I am still waiting for you to explain why you are so afraid of equality. It's part of democracy and thanks to griever maori, Key and Finlayson, NZ is no longer a democtacy because non-maori are now considered as second class citizens under the new race based laws. Part maori have 'elite' status, and the rest of us are nothing.

QUOTES FROM INDIVIDUALS PROVE NOTHING

Posted on 15-08-2013 08:13 | By Peter Dey

Plonker, a quote from some individual in 1927 proves nothing. Reports on Treaty settlements are all available publicly. Read the Waitangi Tribunal report on Tauranga-Moana land confiscation and tell us where you think it is false. When you cannot find anything false then start to realise that you are being misled by false information.

WHAT RACE-BASED LAWS HURT NON-MAORI?

Posted on 15-08-2013 13:18 | By Peter Dey

Plonker, Maori have property rights from the Treaty of Waitangi that non-Maori do not have. But property rights are different from legal rights. Different property rights do not make people legally unequal. What race based laws are there that make Maori and non-Maori legally unequal?

CAPTAIN SENSIBLE AND RACE BASED LAWS

Posted on 15-08-2013 13:22 | By Peter Dey

What are the race based laws that give Maori greater, not different, legal rights from non-Maori?

Part maori have 'elite' status

Posted on 15-08-2013 16:37 | By Good day

Whoa, have you asked any part maori about that "elite" status, you use that term pretty loosely.

On the Money Captain Sensible

Posted on 15-08-2013 17:38 | By Plonker

Peter can not and will not have any answer to that, just watch this space he will pull out the "racist" gambit again now.

Your Wriggling Cap'n.

Posted on 15-08-2013 19:26 | By robin bell

Stop duck shoveling,Peter asked a very simple question."Produce a quotation that disproves a Treaty settlement"You can't.The books refered to are full of dishonesty.Deep down you know this.Robin Bell.