Sunday, May 4, 2014

Bruce Moon: Finlayson's 'father' a tribesman!

Treaty Negotiations Minister Christopher Finlayson said Ngati Porou chairman Apirana Mahuika is one of his “fathers” in the settlement field and someone he could always talk to. "One of the great heroes of the treaty settlement era" was how Mr Finlayson described Dr Mahuika at the signing of an accord in Gisborne on April 24, 2014.

The accord provides for an annual summit between Ngati Porou and the Crown "to create an enduring relationship between the two".

Before his political career unfolded, Mr Finlayson spent years fighting for super-rich South Island tribe Ngai Tahu against the Government, pursuing its treaty claims through a series of high-profile court battles.

"I used to love going to the office in the morning when we were suing the Crown", Finlayson said in a speech in 2009. "Ngai Tahu mastered the art of aggressive litigation. . . It was 'take no prisoners' and it resulted in a good settlement" (for Ngai Tahu).

Analyst Alan Everton described the Ngai Tahu settlement as a swindle.

Mahuika, with an an honorary doctorate from Waikato University, is an ordained Anglican Minister who was a chaplain/teacher at St Stephen’s School, South Auckland, and was chairman of the working party in 1987 that led to the establishment of Te Runanga o Ngati Porou as a trust board in 1987. He continues to hold that position.

The Crown-Ngati Porou Relationship Accord is part of the Crown’s Treaty settlement with the East Coast tribe, enacted in 2012.

At the signing, Dr Mahuika congratulated Mr Finlayson and previous Minister Michael Cullen for what they had achieved, but said the "partnership" had to be on Ngati Porou’s terms.

Apparently, Mahuika thinks not just that his tribe is a "partner" of the Queen, which is a complete lie, but is actually the senior partner and this is apparently accepted by Finlayson. It is outrages like this which are rapidly making most of us second-class citizens in our own country.

5 comments:

Cpt747 said...

..so the 'low-life' unelected MP finlayson draws New Zealand nearer and nearer to a 'bloody revolution'...The integrity of the Rule of Law and Democracy will be lost....with Maori supremacy turning us into their slaves...." Stand Up New Zealand.." removal of these 'iwi' is required....Urgently...

paul scott said...

there is a new tribal coming Bruce, and it will require a new settlement and this settlement will be equity and equality, you will own the property you own

Sam Esler said...

The simple truth is this, if Pakeha hadn't showed up on these shores, Maori would virtually be extinct. As they adequately proved they would have ate themselves into extinction by now!

Anonymous said...

It is simple to point out that the racial Emperor has no clothes on.

So-calledd "Maori" today are not the Maori of 1840, but New Zealanders of mixed European-Maori descent who have chosen to elevate one set of ancestors while trampling down another. Yet traditional Maori culture says that one is to honour all ancestors equally.

For many decades now, there has been no discrete or separate "Maori" ethnic group. It would be virtually impossible to find a “Maori” who doesn’t possess more of the blood of the colonisers than that of the colonised.

To illustrate this point, prior to the passage of the Electoral Amendment Act 1975, the legal definition of “Maori” for electoral purposes was “a person of the Maori race of New Zealand or a half-caste descendent thereof.”

After panicked complaints from its Maori MPs that soon nobody would be eligible for the Maori Roll, the then-Labour Government changed this to read “or any descendent of such a person.”

Under current electoral law, New Zealanders with Maori ancestry can determine once every electoral cycle if they wish to be on the Maori Roll or the General Roll.

We thus have a legal definition of “Maori” that defies definition in the Courts, since it is entirely based on an individual’s periodic decision to identify as “Maori.”

Writing in 1972, historian Joan Metge offers a compelling explanation as to why a subset of New Zealanders today might continue see themselves as “Maori.”

She states: "New Zealanders, both Maori and Pakeha, tend to identify others as 'Maori' if they 'look Maori,' that is if they have brown skin and Polynesian features. Those whose Maori ancestry is not so evident in their appearance are left to make their own choices."

Since the Maori phenotype tends to predominate in a person’s appearance, those who are considerably less than half-Maori are typically identified by others as "Maori" whether they like it or not.

This psychic wound is often compensated for by aggressively embracing a collectivist "Maori" identity and seeking utu from the majority culture these people feel shut out of.

The psychological roots of Treatyism may well amount to little more than the hurt child searching for someone to punish.
The rest of us should not be obliged to validate someone else’s adjustment issues. There is no logical reason for public policy to support the notion that anyone who is less than half-Maori should be regarded as “Maori,” or to dignify their cultural pretensions.

In a free society and within the law one can define oneself any way that one sees fit.

Just don't ask me to kiss your butt, and don't ask me to pay for it!

Peter Pearson said...

St. Stephen's School was an Anglican Boys Secondary School that was closed because of some very unsavoury governance practices.
It had a Maori Headmistress who used the pupil sons of Maori elite to exact punishments on other lesser pupils in order to maintain 'dicipline'.
Another Anglican Maori Girls Secondary School - Queen Victoria Secondary School in Parnell, Auckland was also closed.