This site is an archived version of Indymedia prior to 5th November 2012. The current site is at

The truth about the "TreatyHate" campaign


Former Labour, National, and ACT ad-man John Ansell has kicked off a campaign of "Treatyhate" which he claims is targetted at over 40 years of caving in to "Maori" fraud and the Treaty "gravy train". This co-insides with Rodney Hides attack on the Treaty via his column in mainstream media. Surprise surprise.

The TreatyHate campaigns make various claims that lack substantial evidence and credability and are not even argued by the ACT or National parties, and are based on nothing but racism and hearsay. For example


- Maori should give thanks for being colonised.

- There are only two types of Maori - Achievers, and Grievers.

- Maori were not the first people to New Zealand. His group appears to be supported by authors who write about everyone from the celts to greeks first discovering NZ, in an attempt to justify the poor treatment of Maori through colonisation.

- There is a conspiracy between all Academia, the State, Media, Government Agencies, to bow down to a small minority of Maori.

While these views are clearly outlandish they are dangerous, in that some New Zealanders who do not bother to look behind the racist diatribe and at the facts may give support to a campaign which seeks to scapegoat Maori for most of NZ's problems.

It is imperative that the truth be spread regarding this campaign and its backers such as Louis Crimp who is well known for his anti-Maori views. There are overt and obvious similarities to the Fascist propaganda in Germany during the Depression in 1920's and 30s which alleged that there was a conspiracy between Jews, Media, the State, and that Jews were bleeding the country dry.

The notion of "equality" for all now ignores 150 years of Maori being treated as inferior, discriminated against, and the breaches of the Treaty. This campaign is nothing more than attempt to divide New Zealanders on ethnic lines and a way for the rich 1% to shift the blame for economical and social problems onto the poor. Equality does not equal equity or equal outcomes, it will just ensure that Maori remain in the most deprived populations in NZ with the poorest outcomes in Social Economic Status etc. The true fight is for social equity and justice!

Spread this message and create your own showing the stupidy and "credentials" of this campaign for what it is..




Goddamn, this gravy train

Goddamn, this gravy train business is old pat. So bored by it all. It doesn't even make me angry anymore. Just sad. People need to track down David Slack's book 'Bullshit, Backlash, and Bleeding Hearts'. It's a superb read, well-balanced, factually- and philosophically-sound. Cop that shit, yo!

Federal solution to *both* tangata whenua and pākeha concerns

A federal structure is the only way I can see to simultanously address both the desire of our First Nations, like Ngai Tūhoe, for structural recognition of their mana motuhake (autonomy/ self-determination), and the legtimate concerns of pākeha New Zealanders about becoming peons to the sort of neo-aristocracy represented by the Iwi Leaders Group. A political system which defends basic rights for everyone ("one law for all" in one sense), while facilitating dialogue and local democracy, rather than enforcing a tyranny of the majority through parliamentary supremacy. Perhaps we could use this thread to envision what the key feature of a federal democracy in Aotearoa might look like? Here are some of my ideas.

Firstly, it could be based on autonomous regions, self-governing, and self-defining, based on voluntary association, not hard territorial boundaries. For example, the hapū of Ngai Tūhoe might agree to form an autonomous region covering most of their traditional rohe in and around Te Urewera. However, Te Urewera might have multiple Tūhoe regions. Non-Tūhoe (Māori, Pākeha or otherwise) living in the vicinity of Te Urewera could choose to work within a Tūhoe regional authority, or form their own. Regional bodies could not force any tangata/ person, whānau/ family, or hapū/ community (of any race or ethnicity) living in that region to join, but to balance this, there could be no dogma of absolute "property rights" legitimizing the pollution the environment, or anything else that impinges on the rights of neighbours, including those living in wild nature.

Naturally, this could severely prune back the powers of parliament. Just as the UN General Assembly has to work towards consensus among the independent nation-state represented, rather than having any power to give them orders, parliament could be reconstituted as a federal assembly which must work towards consensus among the autonomous regions (districts/ cities) represented. Representatives to the federal assembly could have no power to make decisions without a specific mandate from the people of their region. I suggest that representatives not have the power to "block" a decision, but must instead articulate a counter-proposal which transcends and includes the best aspects of the decision they oppose.

However, regional autonomy is no excuse to discriminate against people from some neighbourhoods, or starve them of resources. Neighbourhood autonomy is no excuse to enslave workers, to stone women for adultery, to abuse children, or to bully queers. Thus, the federal assembly could have the duty of nurturing internal democracy at all levels; eg defending neighbourhoods from tyranny by the region, and defending individuals from tyranny by the neighbourhood.

Initially there may be a proliferation of micro-regions. In extreme edge cases, a hermit or eccentric community or village could declare their isolated block of land an autonomous region, and demand representation in the federal assembly. However, if decisions of that assembly are by consensus, not majority vote, and if it does not allow filibustering through "blocking", representatives from tiny regions could not game the system as one-MP-parties do in parliament today. In fact, they may bring new information and unique local perspectives into the discussions, bring about more innovative decisions.

As people got used to the new system and learned to find consensus with their neighbours, I suspect many smaller regions would voluntarily merge, of form confederations, until the federal assembly had a workable number of representatives for easily finding consensus on those matters which affect everyone in the whole country. In my experience, the work required to feed into large-scale assemblies mostly discourages the proliferation of micro-regions. With Aotearoa Indymedia for example, it was a painless process to get consensus that is was a more efficient use of our volunteer energy to have one Indymedia feeding back to the global network of IMCs, rather than one for each of the cities where we had an active group. Had we formed multiple IMCs at that stage, I think it inevitable they would have merged into a single confederation over time, simply to reduce the amount of energy consumed by administration.