John Ansell is angry about the Maorification of Everything. He hates the hypocrisy of  self-censorship, and what he regards as the cowardice of the Dominion Post, that refused to run an ACT ad. John says it had 40 statements of truth and no untruths.

John deserves support, even from those who do not agree with what he says, because when truth-telling is punishable by ostracism we all lose.

But, as one of our best ad-men ever, he might understand that mis-chosen words can make a huge difference between public support and failure.

His target is right (I think) but he's misdescribed it.

 I respect blunt courage. I want the truth told.

But in attacking "maorification" he does not engage me, or speak any truth for me, or even communicate clearly.  “Maorification” is not a self evident criticism.

 I welcome some “maorification”. I'd like to see more of it. I've blogged on this many times.

Smart Maori kids realise how easily  suckered are guilt ridden Pakeha.. But they’re tempted into the wrong game. They’ve traded the simple clear classical property rights of the Treaty for political power, co-guardianships and rights to veto or hold out for ransom money. Maori have accepted rights to be negative, to force their neighbours to pretend respect to get permissions. But they’ve lost the real power, to the full exclusive and undisturbed possession and use of their land.

They accept the pretended respect for custom by holding trials with marae protocol, but accept that as a substitute for genuine cultural respect. Our stupid law of name suppression and secrecy and laws about recompense would have been dumped if there was genuine respect for the commonsense of Maori tradition. Criminal law was based around public and family shame – whakaama. How can that survive in the face of the “leave it to us” secrecy of the justice and welfare insiders.

I want Maori to be more assertive of traditional values. I want them to stand up against the nanny lawyers in defence of courage, being contemptuous of systems that accept pathetic excuses for hurting others. What about defending muru, and utu?

 The real Treaty  focussed on what we would share for the future. As Hobson said 170 years ago, “he iwi tahi tatou” now we are one people. He summarised the real Treaty. That was inconvenient to those who want a lever to power without having to persuade, so it has been supplanted. It is not good for New Zealand.

A genuine respect for our heritage, and a genuine desire to protect innocent people from criminals, both maori and pakeha, would see rapid 'maorification' of criminal justice – with no apologies for renewed centrality to utu (punishment or retribution), whakaama (shame) and muru (compensation, including from the families of offenders).

I'm delighted by the maorification of our defense forces. I'm grateful that we are protected by so many people exhibiting Maori valour. I like the fact that in the army at least machismo is still respectable. The PC crowd are too scared of causing cultural offence to try to stamp out the Maori warrior inheritance.

Similarly, I like the licence that the Maori broadcasters have to be non-PC, and to reflect us as New Zealanders in ways that the pussies and ignorami of main stream media could not do even if they had the courage. As an MP I appreciated Maori broadcasters' wish to hear directly from those they thought they might disagree with. I welcomed their willlingness to find things on which we could agree.  I enjoy Julian Wilcox on Native Affairs more than any other current affairs interviewing.

 So I'm happy to see our culture becoming more maori, if that occurs because we, individually and as families are persuaded or attracted to move in that direction by its inherent appeal or warmth or merits.  

What I object to is the use of the levers of the state, the perversion of our constitution  to promote and to enforce such moves. I object to the cynical or naive drive to replace colour-blind law, and equal vote democracy, with the privileges of political power by inheritance.

 I hate what it does to both sides to racialise appointments. Throughout the country we dumbly accept political privilege and token power spots for often incompetent and corrupt “representatives” of a parasitic brown elite.

Jayne Clifton in the Listener mocks those who worry about such things. To get there she has to pretend we have no constitution. She knows better. She would not have the freedom to mock if she was not on a vessel paid for in the blood of those who thought principles and fine distinctions mattered. She seems to want to be a non-paying passenger on that vessel.

I will fight the subordination of our ideals (for a secular egalitarian/meritocratic democracy) to the cynicism of power negotiated among the elites of competing races. But not under a banner that decries "maorification".  It smells of a dislike I cannot share.

It is racialisation I'm against, not maorification. I think relatively few New Zealanders want to be adversarial to each other on race grounds. But we are being steered into it. We just object  to political privilege for Maori being stuffed down our throats using our money and tolerance.