With arrests taking place in both Australia and the UK over people simply displaying the national flag, it is worth highlighting a disturbing case closer to home.
Last year, during the Te Pāti Māori organised Toitu Te Tiriti march, a man named Phil Engel was carrying the New Zealand flag on High Street, Masterton. He was not blocking marchers or causing disruption. He walked in front of the protest, keeping a safe distance, his flag held up quietly and peacefully.
What happened next was shocking. Engel was shoved by one of the movement’s leaders, sparking a scuffle. In the process, his flag was snapped in half.
The altercation unfolded in plain sight of bystanders and was captured on camera. John Ansel’s footage shows Engel being physically manhandled, his flag grabbed and broken by those supposedly championing the cause of “tolerance and respect.”
You might think the story would end there, with police stepping in to investigate an assault on a citizen lawfully expressing himself. But that’s not what happened. Despite video evidence showing Engel being attacked, it is he who now finds himself before the courts. The police charged him with disorderly behaviour.
This decision raises deeply troubling questions about justice, freedom of expression, and the role of police neutrality in politically sensitive situations. When footage clearly shows who initiated the physical confrontation, why is the victim the one facing charges? Why is there no accountability for those who actually broke his property and laid hands on him?
If the law is supposed to apply equally to all, then Engel’s case demonstrates the opposite. It suggests a two-tiered system, where those who align with fashionable political causes are given a free pass, while anyone who challenges them, even passively, can expect to be treated as a criminal.
The flag he carried was not offensive. It was not inciting hatred. It was the national flag of New Zealand, a symbol meant to represent us all. However, in today’s climate, it seems that carrying it in the “wrong” place, at the “wrong” time, can make you a target not just for activists, but for the police themselves.
If you can be shoved, have your property broken, and then be the one criminalised for it, then what freedoms are left? What protections remain for ordinary people who want to quietly and peacefully express themselves in public?
The Engel case is not just about one man and a broken flag. It is about whether we still live in a country where the law is blind, or whether it has become a tool for enforcing political agendas. It is about whether dissenting voices will still be allowed to exist without being crushed under selective enforcement.
We are rapidly approaching a point where simply standing with a national flag could land you in handcuffs. That is not the New Zealand I grew up in, nor the one any of us should accept.
Take education. At the University of Otago, Māori students can be accepted with lower grades than other applicants. Entry criteria are adjusted to meet “equity” goals, meaning the standard expected of non-Māori students doesn’t always apply. Success and opportunity in higher education are being rationed not by merit, but by identity.
Apartheid has no place in New Zealand
This decision raises deeply troubling questions about justice, freedom of expression, and the role of police neutrality in politically sensitive situations. When footage clearly shows who initiated the physical confrontation, why is the victim the one facing charges? Why is there no accountability for those who actually broke his property and laid hands on him?
If the law is supposed to apply equally to all, then Engel’s case demonstrates the opposite. It suggests a two-tiered system, where those who align with fashionable political causes are given a free pass, while anyone who challenges them, even passively, can expect to be treated as a criminal.
The flag he carried was not offensive. It was not inciting hatred. It was the national flag of New Zealand, a symbol meant to represent us all. However, in today’s climate, it seems that carrying it in the “wrong” place, at the “wrong” time, can make you a target not just for activists, but for the police themselves.
If you can be shoved, have your property broken, and then be the one criminalised for it, then what freedoms are left? What protections remain for ordinary people who want to quietly and peacefully express themselves in public?
The Engel case is not just about one man and a broken flag. It is about whether we still live in a country where the law is blind, or whether it has become a tool for enforcing political agendas. It is about whether dissenting voices will still be allowed to exist without being crushed under selective enforcement.
We are rapidly approaching a point where simply standing with a national flag could land you in handcuffs. That is not the New Zealand I grew up in, nor the one any of us should accept.
Talk about privilege, and most people immediately think of “white privilege.” In New Zealand today, another form of advantage is far more visible - Māori privilege. Across education, justice, and public life, there are clear examples of how identifying as Māori can mean special treatment.
Take education. At the University of Otago, Māori students can be accepted with lower grades than other applicants. Entry criteria are adjusted to meet “equity” goals, meaning the standard expected of non-Māori students doesn’t always apply. Success and opportunity in higher education are being rationed not by merit, but by identity.
Apartheid has no place in New Zealand
Matua Kahurangi
·
26 Jun
In New Zealand, we pride ourselves on fairness, equality, and opportunity. We are told that success comes from hard work, merit, and commitment. However, at Otago University’s medical school, one of the country’s most “prestigiously woke” institutions, that fundamental promise is being betrayed.
Read full story
Then there is the legal system. Serious charges, such as injuring with intent, can be resolved with a tikanga-led restorative justice hui. These are often touted as culturally appropriate, but some Māori offenders walk away with minimal consequence, while others would face serious penalties under standard criminal law.
Māori tikanga hui lets ‘well-known’ man walk free from violent charges
Matua Kahurangi
·
3 Sept
Just a few weeks ago I wrote about a man who had amassed a massive collection of child abuse material, somehow the courts handed him permanent name suppression. He can live out his life in secrecy, his identity hidden from the very public he endangered, with his reputation protected more than the children he exploited.
Read full story
These examples are not isolated incidents, they form a pattern. In education, the courts, and public life, the system often bends in favour of those identifying as Māori. This isn’t theory; it’s observable reality. It’s a form of privilege that comes from identity rather than actions or merit, and it affects real people in tangible ways.
Māori privilege is real. It shapes who gets opportunities, who escapes consequences, and who can act with impunity. Recognising it is uncomfortable, but pretending it doesn’t exist only lets the imbalance continue. New Zealanders deserve a discussion that is honest, fact-based, and unafraid to call out the inequities in our system - no matter how politically sensitive the topic might be.
Matua Kahurangi is just a bloke sharing thoughts on New Zealand and the world beyond. No fluff, just honest takes. He blogs on https://matuakahurangi.com/ where this article was sourced.
10 comments:
Wow, surely Phil Engels case will be dropped, it must , correct? How come it doesn't work the other way? Man, we are in serious trouble as a country. We have moved well into dangerous territory. Thanks Jacinda.
Yes Matua, you’re not wrong. But how to fix it? Where’s the government with sufficient wisdom and strength to restore one law for all in a colour blind system? Luxon refuses to even acknowledge that there's a problem. Winston thinks tokenism, like confirming the name of the country and affirming english as an official language, will do it. Seymour was strong enough to take the heat for the Treaty Principles Bill in an attempt to legislate a solution, but Luxon hated it and Winston and Seymour seemingly won’t support each other on principle.
I am personally a case in point of White (and male) privilege.
Born into a poor family, I was stevedoring at age 16 and financially self-sufficient at 17. I wanted to make something of myself so I left home to go to varsity and put myself through a Bachelor's degree by working holidays and sometimes nights during term time. By 20 I had a disabled partner to support.
Went teaching as it gave me time for study to improve myself. Got my Master's at age 33 and finally PhD at 40.
Yep, White male privilege, and I'm supposed to feel guilty about it, huh. You know what you can do with that sentiment? Three guesses, all unprintable.
ACT's campaign may focus on this issue......
Luxon could fix this by lunchtime if he had the gumption to do it.
He is shouting silently from the rooftop of Parliament that he hasn't, and will never allow any discussion within his presence.
Why is the future of NZ dependant on Luxon's personal opinions alone ?
Why does he shut down any of his National tram if they disobey his orders to follow his example ?
He clearly knows that he is completely wrong on the race issues, and yet hasn't the guts to admit it.
Luxon has dictatorial tendencies much the same as Trump.
I listened to his weekly "discussion " with Hosking this morning - the city is in crisis, and yet he said nothing of substance.
Another Nero ?
New Zealand’s justice system, it increasingly appears, is bending the knee to ideology, selective sympathy, and political convenience—and ordinary citizens are the ones paying the price.
Jacob Gunnell, 24, died in December 2022 after taking LSD. Friends witnessed him in distress but didn’t call 111, afraid of prosecution. His mother believes emergency help could have saved him. Progressive politicians and Stuff seized the tragedy to push a “Good Samaritan Clause” shielding people who call for help. Tragic as it was, it seems the principle of personal responsibility is treated as optional.
Then there’s Garth Temokina Thompson. In December 2024, he killed three motorcyclists and crippled another while driving his ute high on meth. His criminal record is long and violent: acquitted of murder over a 1993 assault on Dr Howard Teppett and his sister, convicted of aggravated robbery, and jailed for meth supply in 2012. Yet manslaughter charges for his fatal 2024 crash were avoided.
His lawyer mumbled something about the value of restorative justice to be applied for this lifelong gangster.
Could Solicitor-General Una Jagose’s advice to consider “cultural factors” in prosecutions have played a role? Accountability appears negotiable when ideology or context is invoked.
Contrast this with Hannah Swedlund, a lawyer who vandalised multiple MPs’ offices with red paint in protest over Gaza. Nine meticulously planned acts over three nights.
Yet swedlund sought to evade being convicted because that would unfairly besmirch her work record. Green MP Ricardo Menendez March submitted a support letter; the judge imposed a conviction but emphasised her social conscience and high achievement. Meanwhile, Golriz Gharaman, senior Green MP, was convicted of shoplifting from three boutiques—and faced no political insulation. Selective application of sympathy is unmistakable.
Add the North Island’s meth-fuelled gang wars: the Nomads versus Mongrel Mob feud has escalated into shootings, vehicle attacks, and widespread fear. Manawatū-Whanganui ranks as one of the easiest regions to obtain meth. Police have extended Gang Conflict Warrants to try to regain control, but communities remain at risk.
Across these stories, published on the one day, the pattern is clear: ideology, social standing, or political convenience can shield offenders from consequences, while ordinary citizens—friends, victims, and bystanders—bear the cost. Personal responsibility, equality before the law, and public safety are treated as optional extras.
Jacob Gunnell is dead. Thompson’s victims are maimed or gone. Communities live in fear. Meanwhile, politically connected or ideologically convenient actors navigate leniency, letters of support, or legal reinterpretation. That is selective justice—and ordinary Kiwis are paying the price.
This is the New Zealand we have got.
*drives around the streets of regular Auckland looking for explicit and implicit evidence of Maori privilege*
Wow so much privilege on display, when can the rest of us get some of that sweet, sweet privilege! So much privilege.
“Māori privilege is real”.
Apartheid is a system that imposes “racial privilege”. Codified with the passing of the 1975 TOW Act into law and daily life to grant benefits to the [minority] Maori group and denying them to other groups.
And, anon@11.34, in addition to those and numerous other instances, then we have a party holding special race-based seats in our Parliament thumbing their noses at the legal requirement to file financial returns. We most certainly do need to return to one law for all!
Anon at 12.53: some would say the privilege you don’t see everywhere maori enjoying is because it stops with the maori elite — right there, the antithesis of the trickle down theory. Why not go that way and demand: “show me the real money”.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.