Maori Wards; the Churches have Lost the Plot.

Like all modern  democracies 21st century New Zealand contains people of many ethnicities and viewpoints. At election time they are all able to cast their votes equally to determine the type of government that we want. That is the essence of democracy for which our forebears fought for – and died for – in the two world wars.

However, in New Zealand, despite there being no full-blood Maoris or even half bloods (just a group who have a minority of Maori blood in their predominant European make-up) certain power manipulators have pushed for race-based “Maori wards” in local government in violation of the democratic principle of an equal and universal vote.

It is quite remarkable that, for a group of people who have been detribalised for more than a century and who don’t even have a preponderance of Maori blood in them, it is only now – in the 21st century – that we are told that they must suddenly have separate representation in the form of “Maori wards”. It is yet another power grab by the tribal elite against the rest of us.

Those part-Maoris elected to a “Maori ward” cannot be expected to make decisions for the public good as other councillors have to – but only for the benefit of their tribe. They have no reason to care about the rights or welfare of the general public to whom they are not accountable. They are accountable only to those part-Maoris who choose to be on the “Maori roll”, so why should they worry about the rest of us? Maori wards are the utmost in racial exclusiveness as, by their definition, they exclude the rest of society. It is hard to think of a more debilitating measure in respect of the common good.

In the coming local body elections those voters in municipalities that have already brought in Maori wards pursuant to the Ardern government’s allowance and promotion of such without ratepayer input, have a chance to get rid of these racist and undemocratic seats on councils, and anyone who believes in an inclusive democracy has only one option and that is to vote them out.

However, a group pf churchmen have spoken out and encouraged their ever dwindling congregations to vote for these racist measures. These include Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists and Baptists but not, to their credit, Presbyterians.

Ever since the 1970s and 1980s when the World Council of Churches (Protestant) and the Vatican sent money to murdering terrorist groups in southern Africa there has been a steady desertion of good people from the increasingly political and Left Wing established churches, and this latest promotion of apartheid by loud mouthed clerics will only hasten the process. People like to make up their own minds on non-spiritual things such as Maori wards and do not like to be dictated to by clergy who lead comfortable, often lazy and rather parasitical lives.

Probably the most ridiculous statement of this self-appointed group of politicians in dog-collars came from the Catholic Bishop Emeritus, Bishop Peter Cullinane, who said, “Jesus didn’t exclude people”. No, but these Maori wards do – they exclude all people other than those part-Maori who are on the Maori roll.

Like all New Zealanders part-Maoris are already represented – as is every citizen – by the councillors of general wards whom they can elect. If they wish, part-Maoris can also stand for council in a general ward – nothing to stop them and indeed many of them have been elected in this way. So, what is Cullinane up to by talking about “excluding” people? No Maoris have been excluded from voting for councillors for well over a century.

It seems that in his twisted mind he is trying to propagate the lie that part-Maoris are excluded from voting for councils. In fact, he seems to be implying that to “exclude” is something very bad – a sin. If so, he’s the one committing the sin by promoting race-based wards that exclude by far the majority of the ratepaying public.

Race based Maori wards are backward, exclusive to part-Maoris and detrimental to the public good. In every municipality where the vote is about to be taken on Maori wards the only option for anyone who believes in genuine democracy and a non-racist society is to vote them OUT.

SOME TRUTHS ABOUT THE RUSSIA/UKRAINE ISSUE

by John McLean.

Ukrainians are not Russians. It is not possible to understand Russia’s invasion of Ukraine without knowing something of the historical background. At their meeting in Alaska in August, 2025, Putin told the gullible and unintelligent Donald Trump that Ukraine is Russia’s “brotherly nation”. Not so.

Ukraine came into the Russian empire not by the will of its people but by force; by the late 18th century the last remnants of Ukraine’s autonomy were abolished. In 1783 Russia annexed Crimea and began settling it with Russian people. In the 19th century a Ukraine nationalist movement began but it faced political repression as well as restrictions on the use of the Ukraine language. Its expansive fields became the breadbasket of the Tsar’s empire and its farms were the most modern and efficient in that rather ramshackle empire.

After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 the new authorities in Moscow set up a “Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic”, which was strongly opposed by the people of Ukraine. The problem was Moscow’s demand for the “collectivisation” of Ukraine’s agriculture. Because Ukraine had been such a bountiful source of supply for grain, sugar and other agricultural products the Communist Party in Moscow made very heavy demands on Ukraine’s farmers – higher than for other areas – to provide food for the rest of the nation. To have met these quotas would have condemned thousands of villagers to certain starvation.

Since tens of thousands of Ukrainians had become militarised in the First World War against Austria and Germany it is not surprising to record that they formed themselves into guerrilla forces to resist Moscow’s “food requisitioning teams”. By 1919 these forces numbered more than 100,000 well-armed peasants and they captured many towns in southern Ukraine. In April, 1919, they set up an interim independent government.

In retaliation Moscow’s new and brutal Red Army burned hundreds of Ukraine’s villages and executed without trial thousands of people whom they deemed as “bandits” or “deserters”. This war between the Red Army and the Ukraine peasants lasted from 1920 to 1922 and resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands on both sides.

In Kharkov, Ukraine’s second largest city, the Russians carried out between 2,000 and 3,000 executions of “the possessing classes” between February and June, 1919. When the town was retaken in December of the same year another 1,000 to 2,000 were executed. Between mid November and the end of December, 1920, more than 50,000 people were shot or hanged by the Soviet authorities in Crimea.

Ukraine’s so-called “bourgeois” (middle class) were put into concentration camps while their property was looted, the loot going into the pockets of the local agents of the CHEKA, the early Soviet secret police and the forerunner to the KGB which later produced the “nice” Mr. Putin. To humiliate them further, middle class women were forced to clean toilets in Red Army barracks and many of them were raped by the Red Army, especially during Moscow’s recapture of the Ukraine in 1920.

One of the reasons why Ukrainians in the 21st century are so resistant to having Russian control of any part of their “brotherly nation” is because the Russian Army has a long tradition of raping those in areas that it occupies. Russia has always been a barbaric country (and still is) and never more so than in raping women – and sometimes men – in newly acquired territories.

In the Second World War Russian soldiers raped large numbers of women in Rumania and Budapest as its army rolled westward. Between 70,000 and 100,000 Austrian women were raped in Vienna alone. However, this was only the “curtain-raiser” for what happened when Soviet armies entered German territory. There the Russians raped thousands of women from 8 years old to 80 – especially in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia. Some women, especially young, attractive ones, were raped 60 or 70 times.

In the words of the eminent Second World War historian, Antony Beevor, it was “the greatest phenomenon of mass rape in history”. In total it has been estimated that some two million German women were raped by the invading Soviet troops. The rapes continued in Soviet controlled East Germany until the winter of 1947-8.

And the reaction of the Russians? Stalin, their supreme warlord, declared, “One should understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometres through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle”. In the present war in the Ukraine there have been reports of several rapes by Russian forces of both men and women, – hardly surprising in view of the entrenched tradition of rape in Russia’s armies.

By 1922 the Russians had prevailed in their military conquest of Ukraine and so Mr. Putin’s “brotherly nation” was incorporated into the Soviet Union by force and against the wishes of its people, thereby creating a long term and justified grievance.

In the 1920s the rule of the Communist Party was as brutal in Ukraine as it was in other parts of the Soviet Union under the “iron rule” of the party-state – a new form of slavery. In 1920 the State embarked on a campaign of assaults against Ukraine’s intelligentsia, who were accused of “nationalist deviations” from the Party line.

In the newly collectivised of the confiscated and now nationalised farms the State began to take an ever increasing share of the collective harvest, thus threatening the peasants’ very survival. In 1930 the State took 30% of Ukraine’s agricultural productions but then, in 1931 when the harvest was smaller, it took 41.5%, leaving an inadequate amount for the peasants themselves, for the cattle to eat, for sowing next season and for selling to the local area.

On 7th August, 1932, the party issued an edict executing or imprisoning in labour camps anyone whom they alleged had “committed theft or damage of socialist property” (holding back some grain to feed one’s hungry family). Between this date and December, 1933, more than 125,000 people throughout the Soviet Union were convicted under this law, including 5,400 sentenced to death.

Molotov, the thug sent by Moscow to enforce its will in Ukraine, blacklisted all districts in which the demanded quotas were not met. Of course, this did not increase production and so Stalin decided on a war against Ukraine’s peasants/farmers to starve them out. This particular form of genocide began with the Party’s demand for ALL the grain of a district, including reserves that were being kept back for sowing in the following year. Thus did he deliberately create a man-made famine.

Starved of food, rural people flocked to Ukraine’s cities. However, to combat this and to ensure that they would starve to death, the party introduced new and compulsory identity papers plus the obligatory registration of all citizens. This was a death sentence for millions as they were escorted back to their farms and villages to die. They were tortured to hand over any remaining supplies in this carefully planned genocide.

To underline the man-made nature of this famine one only needs to record that in 1933, while millions were dying of starvation in Ukraine, the Soviet Union continued to export grain in order to get foreign exchange.

The whole of Ukraine was a hunger zone and the total death toll from this man-made famine has been estimated at four million by the multi-authored and well researched Black Book of Communism while other estimates have put it at five million. Is it any wonder that the people of Ukraine to-day do not want a bar of any Russian occupation of their territory? The historical background of this issue between Russia and its “brotherly nation” of Ukraine makes all the more odious Donald Trump’s efforts to paint the Ukrainians as “”wrongdoers” and even “aggressors” and his Russian friends as much deserving invaders.