Saturday, 20 January 2018

Wheeler's Corner 03 21st Febuary 2018



Wheeler’s Corner
“Connecting Citizens Who Care“. Every Monday at 4 pm on Access Manawatu 999AM” Join Peter’s blog http://wheelerscornernz.blogspot.com/  

 03 21st February 2018
1. Below in italics is a review of George Monbiot’s latest book
How Did We Get into This Mess? : Politics, Equality, Nature

Leading political and environmental commentator on where we have gone wrong, and what to do about it

“Without countervailing voices, naming and challenging power, political freedom withers and dies. Without countervailing voices, a better world can never materialise. Without countervailing voices, wells will still be dug and bridges will still be built, but only for the few. Food will still be grown, but it will not reach the mouths of the poor. New medicines will be developed, but they will be inaccessible to many of those in need.”

George Monbiot is one of the most vocal, and eloquent, critics of the current consensus. How Did We Get into This Mess?, based on his powerful journalism, assesses the state we are now in: the devastation of the natural world, the crisis of inequality, the corporate takeover of nature, our obsessions with growth and profit and the decline of the political debate over what to do.

While his diagnosis of the problems in front of us is clear-sighted and reasonable, he also develops solutions to challenge the politics of fear. How do we stand up to the powerful when they seem to have all the weapons? What can we do to prepare our children for an uncertain future? Controversial, clear but always rigorously argued, How Did We Get into This Mess? Makes a persuasive case for change in our everyday lives, our politics and economics, the ways we treat each other and the natural world.
[George Monbiot ends here]

So that’s the formal review, as I read the book over the holidays I was simply spell bound by the truths that he revealed. In chapter 24 he wrote of how hypocritical are our leaders who beg us to save power by using economy light bulbs switching off our TV at the outlet point, etc. etc. While at the same time is giving or paying huge and massive discounts, to those searching for new oil and gas supplies.

They even are permitting open cast mining while supporting the introduction of electric powered cars. It just doesn’t make sense. It’s so typical of today’s political leadership, you know preach ‘Thou shall not kill’ while murdering thousands by the use of drones.

After reading just what the 1% is doing to the world so as to continue to profit out of human destruction and environmental degradation…are our politicians all dumb wits and are they treating the public as a bunch of idiots…it would appear that that is the case.

Some of the Neoliberal nutcases who started the bulk of our problems were very popular with the masses.
Just two crazy neoliberals
Margret Thatcher [UK] and second rate Hollywood Actor Ronald Regan [US] both held very strange views on present day society, they both along with others believed that the market should rule…when coupled with their acolytes such as our own Roger Douglas and his motley crew of Richard Prebble etc. Followed by the angry anti-social Ruth Richardson who was followed by the even stranger Don Brash and later the pony tail lover John Key, with these leaders it not hard to understand just how the coal and oil and gas big boys have ripped off the world around them.

The deal done by Canada in exporting [via a pipe line] tar sands to the United States is obvious proof of how the International scene is being manipulated by the fossil industry environmental destruction machine.   
2
Peter Grove comments on last week’s Wheeler’s Corner
Peter,
Good sentiments expressed in 02 14th January.I watched Oprah's contribution at the Golden Globes and was full of admiration for her views, even in respect of the fact she spoke from a position of some degree of privilege; Self-earned no less, which makes her a person head and shoulders above most of us.

The comments from the Joseph Rountree Foundation were a sobering reflection of the years of Tory Rule in UK.

We can really consider it to be a reflection of the nine years of Tory rule in this country: One which has pandered to the rich, and the Road Transport Lobby among others, to the detriment of New Zealanders of every persuasion.
Much capital has been made of the new Kapiti Expressway which cost $630million only to reveal faults in the seal, once in use. How can it be after all the fanfare, that travel times Kapiti - Wellington are now longer than they were on the original two lane roadway?

Returning to the Joseph Rountree Foundation findings; Since 1979 Tories have held power for a total of 24 years to Labour's 10 years. Therein, obviously, is the reason for the appalling destitution in the UK.

It augurs well for Jeremy Corbyn and his avowed policy 'For the many, not the few.'
If you can find a copy of the video 'I Daniel Blake' please watch it…It gives a realistic portrayal of the travails ordinary Brits face when trying to access government Social Services. It seems our own Social Welfare dept. has copied many of their Pommy counterpart's tricks. The video could be available in the library. Peter G.
3.
Fred Hirst

Press Release:
Newly elected Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern stated that climate change is New Zealand’s 'nuclear-free moment' and indicated her Government would show strong and responsible leadership against this threat by putting “passion into action, by taking bold and decisive measures to protect our future and our children’s future”.

Yet on 20 Dec 2017, the same day that France declared it had ceased issuing new oil and gas permits, the NZ Government issued a new 12-year oil and gas exploration permit  off the Southern Taranaki Coast -  the same habitat as the critically endangered Maui dolphin. 

The early opportunity to show leadership  by cancelling the petroleum Block Offer process and cease fossil fuel subsidies and exploration which are driving climate change, has been lost. The fossil fuel industry and its workers require strong incentives to transition to renewable, sustainable, clean energy initiatives and development. Global action needs to be taken urgently for the sake of our planetary health due to the inevitable and severe climate change consequences of fossil fuel use, now occurring with increasing frequency - extreme temperatures; flooding and coastal erosion; drought ; cyclones and bush fires. Those most at risk include our Pacific Island neighbours and other indigenous peoples; those living with socio-economic deprivation; women, children and elderly people; those with chronic health conditions; those living in countries with weak health systems and those communities dependent on agriculture for  food and economic viability.

In 2012, the International Energy Agency reported ‘Only a third of the carbon contained in proven reserves of fossil fuels can be released into the atmosphere by 2050 if the world is to keep below the 2°C target', agreed in December 2009 at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). This warning was repeated in a scientific paper published in Nature (January 2015; McGlade C and Ekins P; 517:187-190): 'To have at least a 50% chance of keeping below the agreed 2°C target, it is estimated that a third of known global oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80 per cent of coal reserves should remain unused from 2010 to 2050'. ie. fossil fuels needs to stay in the ground.

In response to the issuing of the Taranaki exploration permit on 20 Dec 2017, NZ leaders from Greenpeace, Forest & Bird , 350 Aotearoa and WWF called on the Government, in an open letter, 'to put an immediate end to new exploration for oil, gas and coal in New Zealand. This would powerfully complement the Government’s commitment to passing the Zero Carbon Act, and show its commitment to achieving its 2050 goal of net-zero emissions. Your government has an unprecedented opportunity to create a stable, resilient and low-carbon future for all New Zealand’s people – including those whose livelihoods currently depend on fossil fuel extraction. A Just Transition means supporting the creation of jobs in sustainable industries at the same time as winding down existing fossil fuel industries, rather than expanding them'.
Fred Hirst on behalf of 'It's Our Future Manawatu'
Contact: 06-3570064
                hirst69@xtra.co.nz

Peter J Wheeler




Saturday, 6 January 2018

Wheeler's Corner 01 7th Jan 2018


 

Wheeler’s Corner
“Connecting Citizens Who Care“. Every Monday at 4 pm on Access Manawatu 999AM” Join Peter’s blog http://wheelerscornernz.blogspot.com/

 01 7th January 2018
1.
My poor friend Don Esslemont is at it yet again, telling half truths about the Councils decision to allow Maori Wards.
When the Councillor’s took the intelligent route, by agreeing to introduce a Maori Ward they proved that intelligent individuals could collectively reach an intelligent position on social issues that confront us these days.

After all, we citizens elected Councillor’s to represent us on council, and the massive majority voted for a Maori Ward. [70%] This was a very progressive and enlightened step to take. They had listened to various views on the subject and after doing so even some very conservative Councillor’s changed their past approach to this issue by voting for Maori Wards. And I might add there wasn’t a Maori among them.
Ten of the fifteen councillors’ plus the Mayor reached the intelligent conclusion that the time for a Maori Ward had arrived. Only one Councillor wasn’t present to vote. [Those who voted against are marked with a cross, while the absent Councillor is marked with a question mark].

It is important to understand that if the Don Esslemont / Don Brash emotionally charged drive to roll back the Councils intelligent vote succeeds just what that cost will be.
Council advice is that it will cost approximately one hundred thousand dollars of rate payer’s money to conduct a poll of all rate payers regarding the introduction of a Maori Ward. Not only that but it will be a retreat for better relationships and race relations in general.
Yet it won’t cost one dollar to have a Maori Ward if we simply accept their intelligent decision. 

I’m sure that we would all agree that one hundred thousand dollars could be better spent than asking all those who had already put their trust in the election of our councillor’s to accept their conclusion than part with yet more money to appease a bunch of non-progressive and possibly aging group of backward thinkers like my poor friend Don E.

In the past the Government [s] designed a system to ensure that Maori and others could not succeed in progressing representation in the local communities in which they live.
The concept of wards especially sent a shiver up the spines of our law makers. So they created a system that specifically introduced a safety valve to ensure that a democratically elected Council decision could be rejected by those politically inclined.

This kind of manipulation of society has ensured domination over real social change since 1840.

You may recall a past Prime Minister’s comments on this subject. He wasn’t a left-wing PM. He was Jim Bolger…a National Party Leader. You can listen to him here: http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=201840999 He was open to change, he understood what was taking place.
If Jim Bolger can learn why can’t the Esslemont / Brash / Hobsons pledge mob reach the same conclusion? Even Winston Peters has seen the light!

Ignore the Don Brash / Esslemont crowd and their costly petition and join the thousands who prefer to live for the future of Aotearoa rather than wallow in the dark past of colonial dictatorship. [Earlier blogs on this subject]





2. It could be said the 2017 was the year of the tweet: US President Trump’s ability in regard to the English language only extends to the child like use of the twitter fad… this was his very latest effort:
 In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!
We are all aware of Trumps inability to accept that climate change is a reality, and maybe we should feel sorry for him as an individual and for the US as a whole.

I for one am not over concerned by the idiotic outbursts of a ‘childlike’ President who acquired his position via his wealth and a corrupt political system that has seen voting numbers fall below 50% because of massive exclusions and a general attitude of ‘What the hell’. The main concern of mine relates to what this dumb President may do in the near future. His finger is only inches away from the dooms-day button which if pushed could destroy the world as we know it. His cowboy like behaviour in regard to North Korea should be a major concern for the world at large. To think that he is the supreme commander of the US Military and its destruction machine is frightening to say the least.
History proves that the Americans just LOVE war, and this simply proves the point, America has been at war 222 out of the last 239 years.

War of course has been very rewarding for America, not through the winning of wars but via their continuation. Hence it could be said that the US has never won a war, they lost in Korea, they lost in Vietnam, they lost in Laos, they have yet to win in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they keep losing in the South American arena…In both the second and first world wars which they entered late after making huge profits, they were just a part [but an important one] in other nations success opposing dictatorships.

But most importantly these days; their private and corporation arms sales are booming and they along with the British and other arms manufactures’ who supply other American / UK backed dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia and Israel to name but two of their biggest customers.

Will 2018 see a decline or an increase in America ‘War’ activities, will Trump do as he said he might ‘wipe North Korea off the map? Those are questions we must ask seriously, remember. We caved into Saudi Arabia with an eleven million dollar bride for a non-existent farm.
2018 could well be a defining year for New Zealand both nationally and internationally; will we stand for peace or will we follow the corrupt United States in using technology to supply those who would continue to murder thousands in their pursuit of wealth at the expense of human life and by the continuation of bombing of countries like Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan and occupied Palestine.

These are the serious questions facing our new Government. How we respond will be a defining moment in what makes us different. New Zealand has at times stood up to the bullies. The question is will we do so again. John Key and Bill English gave in to every US demand; will Jacinda Ardern do the same? 2018 may give us some indicators.

Reference:

To learn about the latest saga of Donald Trump go to: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/it-was-an-open-secret/549653/     



Peter J Wheeler




CAUTION: This message and any accompanying data are intended to be received only by the individual or entity identified and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and subject to copyright Thank you.

Monday, 11 December 2017

Biggest Mystery of 2017

Guest blogger Peter Grove
This from guest blogger Peter Grove...

"The biggest mystery of 2017 seemed to be, why did Kreyp [John Key] drop the ball and disappear from view? He must have been reading the writing on the wall. I imagine that with the election result he will be laughing like a drain. I am not sure there was a lot of love lost between him and Blenglish [Bill English] who ended up with the Tory version of the good old, poisoned chalice.

Blenglish simply repeated his outstanding form he displayed in 2002. With Little leading Labour he was pretty much an even match for Blenglish. Both of them had all the charisma of loads of wet firewood!

The advent of Jacinda seemed to be what made the difference. I'm not so sure she is going to last the distance and seems to have lost a degree of support over her insistence with resurrecting the TPP. Her venture into OZ looks to have backfired and the more recent tie-up with Shorten could also go the same way. I don't think Shorten enjoys wide electoral support.

I'm not sure about Robertson. He is a bit too conventional for me and bound to make a mess of it. Time will have to tell. The optimistic Housing programme is bound to come unstuck, simply due to the absolute dearth of qualified tradesmen, thanks to the adherence of Douglas to his shortsighted adherence to Neo Liberalism and the reforms he put in place Jacinda is certainly reaping the rewards of earlier Labour Party stupidity.

The OZ electoral scene looks even more dismal than our's was twelve months ago. Turnbuckle is by no means as popular as he thinks he is, which clearly showed a few months back, when he went to the people with the view of increasing his majority in Canberra. That ended with him being worse off. He has clearly shown he considers us to be the poor relation and his treatment of Kiwi in OZ has been nothing short of appalling. He looks to be as big a flake every bit as much as Howard was, certainly so in respect of Howard's treatment of David Hicks. I have a number of contacts in OZ including our two sons and the general consensus appears much the same.

I could of course be barking up a lamp post rather than a tree holding to those views. Regarding Winston going with Labour a recent comment in TDB laid quite bare the reason for the failure of the coalition talks, Winston v Nats. It seems at first they resorted to bribery, when that failed the turned to straight out lies. Winston showed again he was simply too shrewd for all of them! I think he will do well as Foreign Minister. He established an outstanding reputation in the position in
the Clark Government and certainly held the respect of the administrations he had dealings with, which showed again the charisma of Maori in those situations.

After all that. Season's Greetings and thanks for your comments in your
last blog!

Peter Grove.

Tuesday, 5 December 2017

Panic overtakes humanity in Australia




We will eventually destroy your distorted concepts of democracy and justice and replace them a decent humane system. If you were really interested in stopping harmful foreign interference in our political system you would start by refusing to accept donations to the Liberal and National parties from foreign governments and their intermediaries.[John Tomlinson]


Australians these days appear to fall into two camps the enlightened and the unenlightened. Wheelers Corner guest blogger John Tomlinson is one of the enlightened ones [thank heavens].
Australians are also known these days for their strange attitudes toward incarceration of people on far off Islands in prison camps run by Wilson Security and such like organisation not known for legal humanitarian methods.
Well some Australians are speaking out over the criminal behaviour of both their leaders and those who make false claims about the various invented concerns about national security etc.
The guest blogger is John Tomlinson and he speaks his mind in language that is easy to understand. I wish we here in New Zealand had a few just like him to highlight our various shortcomings. Here is his blog:   
Dear Comrades and fellow travellers this is a brief note sent to our attorney general
To Senator George Brandis:
“Dear bloated turd,
You can stick your revamp of Australia’s espionage laws up your arse. You claim to be protecting Australian democracy but you more than any other cretin have undermined our democracy and decency. You and the entire Liberal National parliamentary party have destroyed our international reputation as a humane country with your offshore incarceration of asylum seekers and refugees on Manus and Nauru.
Your hysterical anti-terror laws are an over the top response to the terror threat which exists in this country. Your cashless welfare cards and Northern Territory intervention are a continuation of the race war of white Australians upon Aborigines for the last 230 years. I spit on your concept of justice.
I give you notice that I will continue to work with decent Australians to rid this country of any trace of the racist infestation of the Liberal and National parties. I will work with honourable people whether they are here or overseas to undermine everything you and your corrupt government stand for. And I will not tell you with whom I am working under any circumstances.
You attack unions for trying to protect workers. You turn a blind eye to injustice. You are an obscenity. All my life Yank and Pommy governments have successfully promoted their forms of corrupt capitalism and I’m sure you will assist them to continue to do so. The Gina Rinehardt’s and Twiggy Forrest’s of this world are given cart blanch to ride rough shod over Indigenous interests and workers’ rights. This is not democracy it is crony capitalism.
You think you can nobble organisations like Get Up and Amnesty International and other such groups which work to make a better world but your insane paranoid delusions blind you to our combined power.
We will eventually destroy your distorted concepts of democracy and justice and replace them a decent humane system. If you were really interested in stopping harmful foreign interference in our political system you would start by refusing to accept donations to the Liberal and National parties from foreign governments and their intermediaries.
You would chase the tax cheats of Google and the like and crack down on rich Australian companies and individuals evading taxes.
You don’t want to enhance or even protect democracy in Australia. You are a popinjay who wants only to gain an unfair advantage over progressive forces who would consign your form of bunyip aristocracy to the dust bin of history. You have no sense of fairness or decency and have to make do with an outmoded degeneracy. We will beat you at the next election and I doubt that that in the interregnum you will get the bulk of your proposed changes through the Senate.  Guest blog ends:

Some back ground information and world opinion: 

From Wikipedia:
Opinion polls show that boat arrivals have always been an issue of concern to the Australian public, but opposition has increased steadily over the previous four decades, according to a 2013 research paper by the Parliamentary Library.[5]
In 2005, the wrongful incarceration of Cornelia Rau was made public through the Palmer Inquiry, which stimulated concern in the Australian public about the detention of children in remote locations and the potential for resultant long-term psychological harm.[10]
Between 1998 and 2008, the UN Human Rights Committee made adverse findings against Australia in a number of immigration detention cases, concluding that Australia had violated the prohibition on arbitrary detention in Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[10][citation needed] The longest-held detainee within the Australian immigration detention system was Peter Qasim, who was detained for six years and ten months.[61]
In March 2012, former Prime Minister Paul Keating said there were "racial undertones" to the debate and that Australia's reputation in Asia was being damaged.[62] In 2013, former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser described the positions of the major political parties as a "race to the bottom".[63]
In 2003, economist Ross Gittins, a columnist at Fairfax Media, said former Prime Minister John Howard had been "a tricky chap " on immigration, by appearing "tough" on illegal immigration to win support from the working class, while simultaneously winning support from employers with high legal immigration.[64]
In 2016, the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, François Crépeau, criticised Australia's policies of mandatory and off-shore immigration detention. Crépeau claimed that Australia had adopted a "punitive approach" towards migrants who arrived by boat which had served to "erode their human rights".[65]

For further information go to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians 

Monday, 4 December 2017

Reveling Don Brash's logic

I went searching for an intelligent explanation of the Don Brash logic against all things Maori and while I realise that its December and Christmas approaches and other matters are no doubt filling our minds and activities, if you can find time to read this I believe many of us will be enlightened. 



"Don Brash is an intelligent person, that is self-evident, his track record as an academic and a bureaucrat attests to that. But on the issue of Maori, the Treaty of Waitangi and biculturalism sadly he is prejudiced. The following is the evidence.
As repeated on Radio NZ on Saturday, Dr Brash insists that the Treaty confirms that Maori ceded sovereignty, were granted rights over their property and have no different rights than any other group of New Zealanders. This interpretation of the treaty is logical if one is selective in defining what the treaty comprises, namely that it is solely the English language document from 1840 that was signed by 39 of the 540 Maori signatories. The rest signed the te reo treaty, te tiriti o Waitangi, that has quite different meaning.

Why does Don Brash choose to exclude from his consideration the te reo versions of the treaty that 90% of Maori signatories signed?
The ambiguity around what the 1840 documents actually mean, the contradictions between the English and the te reo documents, and the subsequent behavior of the colonizing forces that behaved as though the treaty was a document of surrender – have been the reason for the 1975 renaissance of the treaty and its role in contemporary New Zealand. Since that time governments of both hues have reached agreement with Maori over the appropriate meaning and purpose of the treaty. Don Brash accepts none of this.

The post-1975 process has resulted in a raft of negotiated settlements over breaches, many of which have led to legal definitions of what the treaty, taken in its whole, is to mean. These meanings have been established by the courts and through signed undertakings between iwi and government. So when we talk about ‘the treaty’ then we are inescapably talking about the four elements that comprise that agreement, namely
(a)  The 1840 English original and the 1840 te reo original
(b)  The English translations of the te reo original and the te reo translations of the English original
(c)   The agreements between government and Maori that form the body of negotiated settlements of treaty breaches
(d)  The Treaty principles as established through the courts and reflected in the recommendations by the Waitangi Tribunal that have been accepted by the government.

It is this vast body of work then that is in effect, the treaty. It would be quite erroneous to select just one element of this and represent that as the treaty. Insofar as what is recognized officially as the ‘original document’ (not the Treaty, but just the original document) it is the one signed at Waitangi and comprises a te reo text and an English text – which say different things don’t forget, because literal translation was so limited in its accuracy. In the words of Henry Williams who actually constructed what is accepted as the official English language version in 1840 by translating the te reo version into English,
 'I certify that the above is as literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi as the idiom of the language will allow.'

We were soon to learn that the translation was not accurate at all, hence the ambiguity that is an inescapable reality of the original process. No amount of insistence by vested interests can change or legitimately ignore that ambiguity. Which is why, and this is just critical to any understanding of the Treaty, that people know that under the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act, it is the Waitangi Tribunal that has exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of the treaty. For over 40 years now governments have endorsed this authority. And by the way, the Tribunal has ruled that sovereignty was not ceded by Ngapuhi at Waitangi.

Come back now to Don Brash and the Hobson’s Choice people. They refuse to accept the Treaty as comprising anything beyond the 1840 English version that 90% of the Maori signatories did not sign. They do not accept the te reo original, and they accept none of the post-1975 treaty processes apart from a begrudging acknowledgement that breaches occurred and compensation was due. That Maori have accepted on average 1.5 cents (NZ Treasury figures) in the dollar of what they have lost through expropriation is never acknowledged or respected by Don Brash.
Brash is intelligent. So by restricting himself to acknowledging as authentic only the original English treaty, it follows that he can justify his colonizing, imperialist perspective wherein
(a)  Parliament is sovereign
(b)  Maori got to keep whatever property they legally owned (‘legal’ presumably as defined by the Governorship of the day)
(c)   In no other respects are the rights of Maori any different to those of subsequent settlers
But of course his case is flawed, because he has been selective in what he recognizes the treaty comprising – just part of one of the four elements that actually make it up. His logic follows, but his starting point is absolutely wrong.

For me the interesting issue here is why does this otherwise intelligent person, choose to be so utterly selective in what he accepts as the authentic elements of the treaty? Why does someone who otherwise builds arguments from an evidence base, in this case reject 90% of the evidence? Why does he see the treaty as little more than a surrender document to a colonizing force? Why does he refute not only the Maori perspective behind the original 1840 process, but more importantly the collective effort of successive governments, academics and historians to stand back and assess what the actual nature of the treaty is? They’ve concluded it’s the agreement between two societies to share the land, to mutually respect the rights of the other signatory to have their society progress and the aspirations of their people fulfilled, and to have a duty of care to each other’s aspirations. This essence of the treaty and is now well-established, increasingly embedded in our legislation and the nature of bicultural New Zealand, an absolutely unique nation-forming agreement.

One is left with the inescapable conclusion that Don Brash has a preconception of what the treaty should stand for and only by refuting all the other evidence can he support that preconception with a logical flow of argument. His is a colonizing, imperialist perspective and he will not accept any evidence to the contrary.
But why would such a highly educated person exclude evidence and defend his preconception on the basis of logic from just part of the truth?  One cannot escape the Brash reality – he wants his culture to be the pre-eminent one, for its norms to be the only norms and not to be sharing the norms of the other treaty signatory. This, more than any evidence that supports the alternative, is all that is acceptable to Brash. It’s nothing to do with evidence it is a preference – his preference that Maori society has no unique rights under the treaty, no matter what the reality is. He is religiously separatist, and has no tolerance for the sharing ethos which is the treaty reality.
Why would he prefer Maoridom, as the other treaty signatory, to have no unique rights? It has can only be because of his deep-rooted sense of racial superiority, a prejudice that leads him to regard the Westminster-based system as the only legitimate template for New Zealand. Sharing governance with the other treaty signatory is unacceptable.

Despite the evidence that ours is a treaty between two societies to co-exist, have a mutual duty of care, and encourage sharing of values, for the imperious Dr Brash that is beyond the pale – he just doesn’t like it, and willfully dismisses the overwhelming evidence that this is the essence of the treaty. At the point he sacrifices his objectivity, totally.

How ironic that his propensity to call all government endorsements of the rights of Maoridom under the treaty “race-based policies” when the sad fact is the separatism he preaches is founded on unadulterated racism. The more I hear Brash on this subject the more he reminds me of Enoch Powell, the British politician who was also academically capable and deeply racist. He too had a following.
 

http://www.top.org.nz/why_don_brash_is_racist