NZ Herald Demonstrates Why Constitution is a Bad Idea

When Pita Sharples and Bill English announced a week or so ago that they were interested in starting the process of designing a Constitution, many people expressed the opinion that this would be a bad idea right now. The main concern being that NZ’s political state was at an all time low and our current politicians were of such low calibre they did not possess the political acumen or integrity required to produce a document as important as a Constitution.

Part of the reason we have such low caliber politicians is the pathetically one dimensional state of the political conversation. For decades now Progressives, who as part of their political ideology must pursue totalitarianism, have narrowed the political debate to a virtually worthless level. They have infiltrated our schools and universities, our public institutions, our bureaucracies and our government and now totally dominate the political discussion. This is why we cannot at this time consider a Constitution. The entire purpose of a Constitution is to preserve the liberties of the citizens, and bind a government to rules that prevent it from abusing its power. The Progressive political mood that dominates NZ at present runs completely counter to that intent.

Nowhere is this mood more apparent than in the pages of the NZ Herald. An insipid newspaper run by a collection of pseudo liberal Progressives and who, in a complete betrayal of the traditional mores of their profession, daily indulge in an incremental war on our liberty. They are not state owned, but this is a fact that makes their spineless subservience to big government even more contemptible. Furthermore, the ideology of Progressivism is not compatible with ideas of individual liberty. The Herald is so soaked in this ideology, it cannot be a force for liberty even on the rare occasion it might stumble upon some cloudy and indistinct reference to this concept.

It pains me to say so, but many people get their political ideas from the pages of this despicable left wing propaganda edifice, and are naturally extremely narrow and uninformed in their views as a result. That the NZ Herald plays such a big part in NZ’s political argument is one of the main reasons we do not want a Constitution designed or produced right now. Today’s editorial on the proposed Constitution is a good example of just why that is true. Here’s a part of the editorial that I find particularly repugnant-

..there is no doubt New Zealand could not now contemplate a written constitution without the Treaty at its centre. That indeed may be the main reason to bring all of our law governing electoral and political procedure into a single grand statute. “

The Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement almost 200 years ago between a few Maori tribes and the British crown. The tribes agreed to live in peace and abide by the laws of the Crown as the applied in NZ. It was essentially a peace treaty. It bestowed no special status upon those Maori tribes who signed it. They agreed to become citizens of the crown the same as every other citizen of the crown. The Treaty’s purpose was served at the time it was signed and it has no real function today. That race based separatists are claiming otherwise does not change this historical fact. The Treaty is done, finished has no purpose today and should be framed and put on the wall of a museum and that’s the only part it needs to play in today’s society. One thing it should not be used as is a propaganda device for separatism and racism.

That the NZ Herald should, in a cowardly sop to the racists and separatists, endorse the Treaty as the centerpiece of any new Constitution, is an example of the insidious evil that this newspaper daily pumps into the life stream of this country. The essence of any Constitution is the oneness of the country. Its purpose is entirely defeated if we start making reference to races, be they Maori, European, Samoan, Chinese or whatever. Moreover, its purpose is entirely perverted if it seeks to bestow special status on any one race.

No to any Constitutional review. Not until this country is free of the oppressive political presence of the Progressives, and especially their prime propaganda organ the NZ Herald. Momentum is gathering. The Tea Party movement in the US is the first strong push back against the Progressive totalitarians. It will come to NZ. Their propaganda organs are dropping like flies. The Herald is in its death throes. Soon they will be gone. A new political mood is coming upon us. One much more conducive to the production of a Constitution. We just need to hang on a while longer. To allow these despicable people to produce a Constitution now would be a major mistake and one that we would regret for centuries. Change is upon us. A small wait now will save us from a lengthy and large regret in the future.

15 thoughts on “NZ Herald Demonstrates Why Constitution is a Bad Idea

  1. “A small wait now will save us from a lengthy and large regret in the future.”
    Which is exactly why the Nats and their brown accomplices will soon begin to generate an air of urgency about it. Then they’ll claim there’s “momentum” for change. And of course, they’ll be party right at least, since the sheeple are so easily stampeded towards the pen…..


  2. Yeah that is dead right KG. They feel the winds of change. The internet is breaking their hold on information. Putting cracks in their propaganda wall. They know they will have to act now or their chance to impose their stinking Marxist racist separatist views may well be gone for a long time.


  3. Lets just hope that enough of the sheeple are able to be re-directed into another pen – through having their eyes opened to what seems obvious to many of us in the blogosphere.

    I still think the success, or otherwise, of the Tea Party in the States will largely determine what transpires on the political horizon in other Western nations. Although I think much of Europe and the UK are already stuffed and may in fact be too far gone to bring them back from the brink.


  4. I still fail to see what Key’s “strategy” is here. As soon as he doesn’t acquiesce to the separatist party, they’ll just turn to the increasingly desperate for power Labour Party to get a raft of easy concessions from them.

    Mr Key & co are walking a dangerous line


  5. It sure sounds like you have an uphill battle. When the Establishment really wants something bad enough, they know how to take advantage of inertia. They often succeed in making their opposition appear radical no matter how much the reality is the opposite.

    How well are you guys doing in creating a strong alliance of independent bloggers focused on reform down there?

    You already know many of the difficulties and dangers. From what you’ve recounted here about kiwiblog, where there appears to be an hocky-like penalty box applied to the Right and not the Left, the Herald isn’t your only problem.

    You are regularly visited by trolls and mobies and god-knows-who’s agents coming in to cause you trouble. Examples 1) say things that you leave in that the authorities will use against you. 2) say things that you take out over which others will scream “censorship,” and “you’re just like them,” etc. 3) introduce red-herring issues to deflect you away from substantive discussions, 4) introduce divisive issues, 5) a plethora of things I’ve forgotten 😉 .

    You must realize that there is a great deal of psy-ops involved. It has to be. Your opposition is simply too well funded, and is too mad for power not to do so.
    This may help explain what you’re up against. You really needs to learn counter-measures. Will it help? I pray it will.


  6. Pascal 11:54,

    I like your ADE quasi acronym for Antidisestablishmentarian – especially the parallel with AIDS and what it does to the human body.

    How about it ALSO standing for Appeasers, Drongos & Enablers – A.D.E. – we certainly use the term “appeaser” and “enabler” quite often in a similar sense. “Drongo”, if you’re not familiar with the term, is similar to ‘thicko or ‘moron’ – someone simply too thick to see the forest for the trees. Whereas ‘appeasers’ and ‘enablers’ are usually more deliberately dishonest.


  7. I can see the Consitution now, you have the right to:

    Life (and of course free medical treatment)
    Liberty (as long you don’t offend anyone)
    Property (as long as the state doesn’t need it more)
    An income (no matter whether you work a day in your life)
    A house (in a nice suburb with all the mod cons of course)

    And if your Maori we have a “special” Constitution for you…

    Sigh, sounds a lot like the Constitution of the USSR (yes they had one, three actually):

    They also identified a series of economic and social rights, as well as a set of duties of all citizens. Nevertheless, Soviet constitutions did not contain provisions guaranteeing the inalienable rights of the citizenry, and they lacked laws to protect these rights. Thus, the population enjoyed political rights only to the extent that these rights did not conflict with the goal of building communism. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union alone reserved the authority to determine what lay in the interests of Communism.

    Expect lots of “get out” clauses for the government…


  8. Excellent direction of thought Kris K My version requires referring back to that impossible word that inspired the need for the word. Your version uses words that have grown out of antidisestabishmentarianism which create an true acronym.

    We now have Appeasers, Drongos and Enablers down there, and Apeasers, Dipshì+s and Enablers up here.
    ADEs protect the established order no matter how corrupt or insane their bosses become. A society where reformers are attacked by ADEs cannot heal itself and is doomed.

    Thus: AEDs do to society what AIDS does to the body

    Thank you Kris.

    RB, the idea of ADEs and making use of the acronym may be ultimately unimportant. However, more importantly, what this episode demonstrates is why blogs are viewed as dangerous by those in power. Blogs are so much better than other forms of media. The free interplay of ideas allows for opportunities to work out all sorts of difficulties at defeating ever more reaching and desperate tyrants. It should be clear to everyone that this is one reason that PC has been implemented everywhere in the West and true brainstorming is hated. Unrestricted brainstorming unleashes thought, and unrestricted thought is viewed as threatening to those who seek to rule.


  9. If this link does not work then google the Littlewood Treaty.

    I actually thought that Don Brash in one of his speeches said “”He Iwi Tahi Tatou” – We are now one people”
    In a way I thought he had knowledge of the Littlewood Treaty, the original English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi and carried the original intentions as written by James Busby. It makes perfect sense with the Littlewood Treaty . It is not a version, it is the intent of the Queen Victoria and Governor Hobson that was drafted by James Busbythen translated by Rev Henry Williams into Maori and fully and openly discussed and debated so they knew what they were signing.

    It is not strange that when this copy came to light that it has not been refuted by historians such as Claudia Orange, and government paid Dr Donald Loveridge but just inferred against and side lined as the bureacracy gravy train had just left the station and so many with vested interests in the 1869 translations and now seeming to be locked into NZ law.
    It is just not being exposed and our media is does little in learning about this version and importantly what are the differences and what it means.

    This what has to be opened up and becomes the English Language version of the Treaty ! !, particularly if this constitutional ideas go ahead.

    Please read and consider your “original draft documents” of the Treaty with tremendous care, as you’ll find that the English version being used in all of our legislation is the wrong text. The true Treaty Of Waitangi, in both English and Maori, clearly states that the “customary rights” referred to in Article II are for “all the people of New Zealand” collectively and not for any singular ethnicity.

    Their forum there is now closed, either lack of funds? or just too many obnoxious comments from absolutely rattled objectionists which I noticed a few years ago and then became plague like.

    Too me it would be a win/win, as another front opens up and it is the truth, then the old “tow” would and should not be a part of the constitution, or if it is as per “Littlewood version”, then those imortal words, “He Iwi Tahi Tatou””We are now one people” would have real meaning as said by Hobson referring to the English final draft treaty written by Busby if it is part of the constitution.

    I also am reluctant to see a constitution written by any of our bureacracy, and led by the current media, but where we can hold out such as the raising the profile of the Littlewood version may cause much more disquiet to the ones with vested interests when they see a real can of worms and a loss, and give them reason to stop this constitutional idea, and if not well we can concede with the Littlewood version which amounts to

    the chiefs consenting that they fully understood the words of the Treaty and that they would become one people with one law under British Sovereignty.

    “We are one people”


  10. simpleton, I must have asked dozens of Kiwis if they knew about the Littlewood treaty and not one of them did. Yet…they’re happy enough to blather on about “the provisions of the treaty of Waitangi” at the drop of a hat.
    There’s such a massive wall of silence about the Littlewood, it’s impossible to see it as anything but a conspiracy of silence to protect the billions of dollars at stake.


  11. Definetly a wall of silence, or aggression as shown to Don Brash in his Orewa speech in January 2004. where his grasp of early European Maori and the treaty, for me showed that he had got it and seemed to hint at quite understandingly of the treaty set up, but of course he had to be politically circumspect.

    Winston Peters actually mentioned the “Littlewood” version on 18th of March 2004 in the Bay of Plenty and in the main edition of the New Zealand Herald it was just called the English version of the 1840 Treaty.

    It is worth looking at the differences
    The BOP readers got a lot more information than what was told to the rest of NZ

    Mr Peters said he wanted a commission to “address the controversial subject of exactly which version of the Treaty of Waitangi is official”
    ” The last English version has the most credibility as it was set out to include all New Zealanders”
    He was referring to what is known as the “Littlewood ” version of the treaty which is claimed to be the final English draft from which the Maori version was translated.
    It is distinct from the the recognized English version in that in the second article , the Queen of England confirms and guarantees the protection of lands, dwellings and property to “all the people of New Zealand” as well as the chief and tribes.
    But proponents of the Littlewood version argue that those words eliminate any notion of special protection for Maori.

    I am no fan of Winston Peters and it seems he used this as a political angle to get and keep his baubles, perhaps one of those things he held over the government. Unfortunately it was only for his benefit, as he never kept making it an issue for the good of the country, which he could have done.

    Again just one of many being well bought off

    Any one who tries to raise and discuss this is heavily denigrated with all the resources of government and aided by the media.
    However for all the noise they make the local paid govt experts have not been able to refute the “Littlewood” version, and Winston is right, it deserves an open Commission of Inquiry


  12. A Commission of Inquiry into the Littlewood version of the Treaty of Waitangi should be demanded before designing any Constitution. That will surely “put the cat amongst the pigeons”. 🙂 and after all they are the ones who look to be pushing the “principles” (what principles?) of the Treaty of Waitangi into every thing.

    So it is about time the true and correct translation of the maori language Treaty is well pointed out, that many things so claimed can not even be in the maori version ! ! Probably even a commission of inquiry into the maori version would suffice and show what is not there in translating to English.


  13. simpleton says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    December 16, 2010 at 22:46

    Or is the comment gone to spam?
    I hope I do not seem impatient


  14. What should be taught at school is the true final English draft before translation into maori that would show what it means in all the te reo nests too ! !

    Now opportunity has opened up to us through blogging, to post the Littlewood English draft, to reprint it, and to quietly keep correcting others, and to keep referring to it .
    It should also be put up in Councils, and where ever the treaty is hung, or quoted.

    Initially we may have to learn more, share and understand the differences and all that it means. Maybe learn it by heart, even in maori so that we can show how it is correctly translated and so what it means ! !

    I have found that some maoris have admitted the truth to me, about what is not in the maori form, and then say we (Europeans) are happy with the 1869 translation and if we (government) are happy with that, then so are they. 🙂

    Their achilles heel is that Littlewood has only been sidelined, suppressed, inferred against, and as Micahel Cullen said “that under international law the maori version must take precedence”. It has not been refuted

    Let us start showing the irrefutable final English draft more often. I know it is suppressed in many government departments, media etc., but see how far we can get, first blogging, and then small steps, class rooms, councils, notice boards etc. sort of all below the radar for a start. Make no big battle so it may be talked around the bbq etc. slowly changing where people accept the govt meme. Just to get it out there with out too much fuss to start with, so others can figure and come to know the truth of what it says. In a couple of years or so after it has been put around more so and hopefully more people have become aware of it, then raise the actual issues of difference if it has not become an issue earlier.
    Or am I dreaming?

    Is this still in moderation?
    simpleton says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    December 16, 2010 at 22:46
    Or is the comment gone to spam?
    I hope I do not seem impatient


Comments are closed.