Multi-Culturalism Undermines Free Speech

By John McLean

It is a well-known but sordid fact that Labour governments will always seize on a particular outrage committed by one or two persons as an excuse to clamp down on the rights of everybody, e.g. the Christchurch mosques’ massacre and the Bondi shooting in Sydney, both of which led to a frenzy of State authoritarianism in respect of gun ownership and free speech.

Within 72 hours of the Christchurch massacre the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, announced a ban on military style automatic firearms, some of their related parts and all high capacity magazines – exactly what farmers need to control pests in the countryside. This was policy on the hoof purely for public perception – to use the excitement and horror of the massacres to “justify” such an attack on the age-old right of farmers and others to have an effective gun.

Ardern allowed only two days for Parliament to hear submissions on this important restriction and then the Bill was passed with the help of a frightened and, as usual, worthless National Party. David Seymour, ACT’s sole M.P., was the only one to keep his head and vote against it.

Ardern tried to justify this and her clampdown on “hate speech” by telling yet another of her many lies – “It would make New Zealand safer”. To any would-be gunman the law of the land is irrelevant; there are always ways to purchase what is illegal, e.g. drugs. Although virtually ineffective, Ardern’s law did manage to achieve one object: it did inconvenience farmers who, like employers, landlords, evangelical Christians and self-employed business people, were very high on her “hate list” and are still very high on the Labour Party’s hate list.

Her government also tried to use the massacre to limit the individual’s right to free speech – a form of censorship that Ardern has devoted herself to ever since she was hounded out of office by the power of the anti-vaccine movement. In the words of her Justice Minister, Andrew Little, “In New Zealand our political and social culture has been very defensive of the rights of free speech. We err on the side of letting people say stuff”. And so we damned well should.

Speech did not cause the Christchurch massacre; an evil man with a gun did – and he wasn’t even a New Zealander. Speech does not kill and there is no justification in using a single criminal act as an excuse to limit the right of the free speech of everybody. Our centuries old right of free speech belongs to the people and not to some passing jacks-in-office such as Ardern and Andrew Little. If we’re not free to say what we think, we no longer live in a free society.

Labour politicians in Australia hate free speech every bit as much as their New Zealand counterparts as they showed in the aftermath of the Bondi shootings of fifteen people in 2025. In Canberra the Albanese government rushed in and passed within a matter of weeks an ill-thought out statute called The Combatting Anti-Semitism, Hate and Extremism Act 2026. As in the Christchurch case it has nothing to do with making Australia safer since the two gunmen were Islamic immigrants whose ingrained hatred of Israel and Jews did not need to be further advanced by any “anti-Semitic” tract or booklet.

The real purpose of the Act seems to be to ban certain political parties which, by telling certain truths outside the Establishment lies, might take voters away from the two main parties (just as Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is doing at present). Part IV of this sinister Act allows the government to prohibit certain organisations as “hate groups”. In other words, the law is being weaponised against any party whose arguments can’t be met by the Establishment. Just like in Germany where there are moves to ban the popular AFD party which is, in fact, the largest opposition group in Germany’s parliament, the Bundestag, where it holds 151 seats and is poised for greater things.

So, what sort of organisation in Australia is being targeted as a “hate” group so dangerous that it has to be destroyed by the law? The first target of the new statute is a party called the White Australia Party, described as “a right wing political party”. Oh dear! Can’t have that.

This party wants to limit immigration from the Third World so as to preserve Australia’s European population and heritage. Nothing wrong with that – a policy with enormous potential for disenchanted Australians who see every day – especially in Melbourne – more and more of their streets being taken over by Indians and other Asians. Furthermore, this “white Australia” policy was the very policy that Australia followed very rigidly for the first 187 years of its 238 year history (1788 to 1975). So, a policy that was acceptable to Australians for several generations and widely supported by them is now considered so dangerous by Albanese and his mafia that any groups advocating it must be BANNED.

On the other hand they have not used the legislation to ban any radical Islamic group of the type that provides background to certain violent Islamic criminals. As I said, the legislation is not about making Australia safer but about preventing potentially popular ideas from taking root and developing. The rise in popularity of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation has frightened the Establishment (both Labour and Liberals) so much that they cannot risk anything like the White Australia party developing in a similar way. Just like when One Nation was taking off and so they imprisoned Pauline Hanson on false charges for ten weeks.

So much for the government in Canberra but the New South Wales state government was no less opportunistic in pushing through rushed laws to protect the Jewish community and put many thousands of taxpayer dollars into the hands of Jewish groups. It should be noted that the Labour Premier of New South Wales, Mr. Chris Minns, has long been groomed by Israel to do its dirty work abroad. In 2003 Israel gave him an all expenses paid trip to Israel on the Israel Ramham junket programme which aims to capture young Western politicians at an early stage and groom them to be a reliable asset for Israel and Jews in general.

In the immediate aftermath of the Bondi shootings Minns repaid all this care and attention by pushing through rushed laws, restricting the right of protest. This was aimed primarily at Palestinians who were periodically protesting against Israel’s genocide of the Arabs in the Gaza Strip. These rushed laws – in the name, of course, of “community safety” – were later struck down unanimously by the judges of the Court of Appeal as “unconstitutional”.

In defence of his war against free speech Chris Minns bleated: “We don’t have the same freedom of speech laws that they have in the United States. And the reason for that is that we want to hold together a multi-cultural country”. This is a most revealing comment as it admits that what flows from a multi-cultural society is a restriction on free speech in order to accommodate such an unnatural and dangerous phenomenon as “multi-culturalism”.

In the words of former German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, “We always knew it; the idea of a multi-cultural society cannot succeed. It is doomed to failure from the start.” And the distinguished Canadian psychologist and author, Jordan Peterson, “Multi-culturalism is unlikely to succeed due to differing characteristics of different cultures. If you think you can import a multitude of cultures without a unifying rubric and not import the problem of interpersonal and social conflict, you’re either blind or stupid or both.”

Not one voter in Australia or New Zealand has ever been asked whether we want to share these two great countries that were built by British settlers with all sorts of riff raff from the Third World. Instead, this important decision to destroy traditional demographics was taken by arrogant and treasonable political parties such as Labour and National in New Zealand and Labour and the Liberals in Australia.

It is time for the ordinary people of Australia and New Zealand to take back control of our destinies once and for all by quitting the parties that have been responsible for this terrible treason. No wonder parties like the White Australia party have to be banned; it’s all part of the price of the unnatural and destructive multi-culturalism that has been forced on us by the permanent political elite.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON – Enemy of New Zealand?

By John McLean

Christopher Luxon might be a bit short on governing skills but when it comes to selfishness and lack of patriotism he seems to be right up there at the top – as shown by his reaction to not one but two challenges to his ineffectual leadership by National M.P.s in the last few months. A more honest and patriotic man would look beyond his own egotism and selfishness by considering the good of both the National Party and New Zealand. Since he became Prime Minister he has shown both his incompetence and his nastiness on several occasions.

When he was Leader of the Opposition the 1Law4All organisation printed a booklet entitled “Are We Being Conned By The Treaty Industry?”. It called for One Law For All New Zealanders and no special race-based legal privileges for those who are one-eighth or one-sixteenth (or whatever) Maori.

This was seen by the tribal elite as a threat to their ever growing power and so they kicked up a stir in the media. When asked about the booklet Luxon, in order to ingratiate himself with the Left wing media, damned it as “racist”. What? For advocating the same laws for everybody!!!!!! This was a straight out lie as nothing in the booklet was (or is) racist.

This instance of deceit and nastiness is not untypical of the man. As part of the Coalition agreement with ACT National was committed to supporting David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill to its First Reading. After that, National would have the right to make up its own mind and, by our constitutional practice, that might have been expected to be after the hearing of public Submissions, which took place between the First Reading of the Bill and its Second Reading.

However, at the Waitangi circus in February, 2025, Luxon was “got at” by the thugs of the tribal elite and so immediately after returning from Waitangi he announced that National would not support the Bill at its Second Reading. By refusing to wait for what might have come out of the public Submissions to the Bill, he showed that cowardice is yet another one of his unpleasant characteristics.

In order to ingratiate himself further with the tribal elite and other enemies of a New Zealand where we would all have the same legal rights, Luxon said that there was “nothing at all” that he liked about this Bill – a Bill that was motivated by the noble and democratic principle of One Law For All, and that he ruled out the inclusion of such a measure in any future Coalition arrangements with ACT and NZ First. He hates the idea of all New Zealanders having equal rights and deserves in return the contempt of all New Zealanders who value democracy and equality.

It doesn’t take too many brains to realise that Luxon is leading the National Party to likely defeat in November. As that wise old owl, Peter Williams, recently stated on RCR, “The National Party is a shambles with a leader and senior M.P.s whose egos matter more than the good of the country.”

This downward path could have been rectified at either of the two recent leadership challenges but for Luxon’s selfishness in refusing to resign. He has no concern for the future of the country – just for his own personal position.

The thing is bigger than him or even the National Party itself as a Labour led government of Greens, TOP, and the Maori Party would be a fate worse than death. Little Hipkins wouldn’t last long as the neo-Marxist, Kieran McAnulty, appears to be just waiting in the wings to stick the knife into his leader’s back so that he and his fellow Marxist sympathisers would have carte blanche to steal our property and our rights and to undermine the economy. Just like Grant Robertson, Ardern and little Hipkins did in the last Labour government by so recklessly increasing borrowing to such heights that it is unlikely ever to be repaid, the interest becoming more and more a burden for future generations.

Luxon lacks a spine and the only times that his government has shown any courage have been when Winston Peters and David Seymour have provided the spine that otherwise would have been lacking. It is time for this utterly inadequate Prime Minister to put his country ahead of himself for a change. All he has to do is drive to Government House and tender his resignation. I am sure that there are thousands of people who would volunteer to be the chauffeur.

THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL ANCHOR; FORMAL NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

By Ivan Barnett

This document requires immediate and serious attention from ACT, NZ First, and National MPs.

It is not a partisan argument. It is a constitutional warning.

New Zealand is experiencing constitutional drift driven by: undefined Treaty terms, judicial reinterpretation, bureaucratic expansion, non‑statutory governance structures, opaque Crown–iwi negotiations, public funding of private entities without accountability.

These developments are occurring without public mandate, without statutory authority, and without democratic legitimacy.

Failure to address these issues will result in the continued erosion of parliamentary sovereignty and the entrenchment of unelected authority structures.

I. THE TREATY TEXT: THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL ANCHOR

The Māori‑language Treaty — the only version actually agreed to — contains:

kāwanatanga ceded to the Crown,

tino rangatiratanga guaranteed to individuals and hapū over their property,

nga tikanga katoa rite tahi — equal rights under the law.

It contains no partnership, no co‑governance, no shared sovereignty, no “principles,” and no requirement to “give effect to” anything.

The English text was not agreed to.

The “principles” doctrine was invented more than a century later.

The partnership doctrine has no basis in the text.

The Māori text is the constitutional foundation.

II. JUDICIAL REINTERPRETATION AND CONSTITUTIONAL RISK

The courts have expanded Treaty obligations far beyond the text, creating:

Partnership, active protection, shared authority, co‑governance, obligations to “give effect to”, obligations to protect “taonga” in an expanded sense. These expansions were not authorized by Parliament. They were not authorized by the Treaty.

They were created through judicial interpretation, often relying on the English text or later political developments.

This has created a parallel constitutional framework that Parliament never enacted.

III. THE LEGAL EXPANSION OF “TAONGA”

A. The 1840 Meaning

In the Māori text, taonga meant:

Property, goods, possessions, tangible items.

It did not include: political authority, natural resources, data, language, environmental governance, cultural veto rights.

The modern expansion is a post‑1980s invention.

B. Case Law Driving Expansion

NZMC v AG (1987)

Expanded “taonga” to intangible cultural values.

Broadcasting Assets (1994)

Declared Māori language a “taonga” requiring Crown protection.

Ngāi Tahu v DG of Conservation (1995)

Extended “taonga” into commercial regulation.

Ngāti Apa (2003)

Extended “taonga” into territorial authority.

None of these expansions are grounded in the Māori text.

C. Tribunal Jurisprudence

The Waitangi Tribunal has extended “taonga” into: flora and fauna (Wai 262)

intellectual property, genetic material, scientific knowledge, data sovereignty (Wai 2522)

political authority (Wai 1040)

These findings are advisory, yet government agencies treat them as binding.

D. Constitutional Consequences

Judicial policymaking replaces parliamentary lawmaking. Undefined Treaty terms override statutory clarity, Sector‑wide co‑governance claims proliferate, Equal citizenship is eroded. Parliamentary sovereignty is weakened.

IV. NONSTATUTORY GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES

A. National Iwi Chairs Forum (NICF)

Not created by statute.

Not elected. Not accountable. Not subject to OIA.

Yet Ministers attend its meetings and treat it as a parallel policy body.

B. Iwi Leaders Groups (ILGs)

Operate in: Freshwater, climate, resource management, health, data.

They draft policy frameworks and negotiate directly with government agencies.

C. Data Iwi Leaders Group (DILG)

Claims Māori data is a “taonga” requiring Māori governance.

Influences: Cloud First, AI governance, national data policy. This is policy capture by a private entity.

D. Funding and Accountability

These bodies receive taxpayer‑funded support through: departmental budgets, consultancy contracts, engagement payments, co‑governance participation funding, local government contributions.

Yet they remain: unaudited, unregulated, unaccountable, opaque. This is incompatible with democratic governance.

V. CONSTITUTIONAL RISKS TO NEW ZEALAND

Parallel authority structures. Loss of democratic accountability, Opaque decision‑making, Erosion of equal citizenship. Undermining of parliamentary sovereignty, Judicial expansion without democratic mandate. Policy capture by unelected entities, These risks are not hypothetical.

They are already occurring.

VI. REQUIRED ACTION BY PARLIAMENT

To restore constitutional clarity and democratic accountability, Parliament must:

1. Define “taonga” explicitly and narrowly

— as property and possessions in the 1840 sense.

2. Anchor Treaty interpretation in the Māori text

— not in judicially‑invented “principles.”

3. Affirm that NICF, ILGs, and DILG have no constitutional or statutory authority

— and cannot bind the Crown.

4. Require transparency in all Crown–iwi negotiations

— including OIA coverage.

5. Reassert parliamentary sovereignty

— only Parliament can make law.

6. Ensure equal citizenship under Article 3

— no parallel governance structures.

VII. RED LINE DECLARATION

No constitutional authority may be transferred, shared, or implied through: undefined Treaty terms, judicial invention, bureaucratic policy, non‑statutory negotiation, co‑governance arrangements ,partnership doctrines.

Tribunal findings. Only Parliament may legislate. Only the Māori text of Te Tiriti is binding.

Equal citizenship is non‑negotiable.

VIII. CLOSING CONSTITUTIONAL STATEMENT

This document is submitted to ACT, NZ First, and National with the expectation that it will be treated with the seriousness required of elected representatives. This is not a political dispute.

It is a constitutional inflection point. If Parliament fails to act: constitutional drift will continue, democratic accountability will erode, parallel authority structures will deepen, public trust will collapse.

The responsibility now rests with Parliament.

The public expects clarity, courage, and constitutional integrity.

This document has been compiled from a wide range of files, reports, and reference materials. It is provided to Members of Parliament for serious consideration. The content requires further research, careful evaluation, and informed discussion to ensure that the constitutional issues identified are properly understood and addressed

1 2 3 8