Jacinda’s Library



SOME COSMOLOGISTS SAY that ours is but one of an infinite number of universes. It’s a wild thought, because, if they exist, this infinity of parallel universes grants us an infinity of parallel lives. Whatever we can imagine ourselves doing has already been done, is happening right now, or will be done at some point in the future, in one of these alternate worlds. In this universe we may be powerless paupers, but elsewhere – in at least one of these parallel universes – we are kings.

How’s that for a comforting thought the next time you’re feeling down?

The idea that there are other worlds, adjacent to this one, is far from new. In the myths and legends of many cultures we find tales of people who left their homes on hum-drum errands, only to encounter mysterious beings who, in the twinkling of an eye, transported them to places of wonder and enchantment. When they return home, time itself seems to have been stretched and twisted. By their reckoning, their absences can only have lasted a few hours, but in the country they left behind, many years have passed. Loved ones have died, or grown old, and our baffled heroes pass, unrecognised, down streets that did not exist when they set out – only a day before.

All very Einsteinian (or should that be Schrodingerian?) but rest easy, there is a purpose to all this esoteric speculation.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Nowhere is the experience of contingency stronger than in the realm of politics. Politicians and political activists may live in this universe, but their heads and hearts are filled with the multiple worlds that could exist – if only the voters; the proletariat; the national community; were courageous enough to bring them into existence.

This multiplicity of possible worlds is often expressed in the musings of what are called “counterfactual” historians. How often have we heard someone pose the question – “What if?”

What if the Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s car had turned down another street in Sarajevo – instead of the one where his assassin, Gavrilo Princip, was eating his lunch?

What if JFK had toured Dallas in a standard – instead of an open-topped – presidential limousine?

What if Roger Douglas had been hit by a Wellington trolley-bus on his way to Parliament in 1983?

Whenever questions like these are posed, we sense the presence of alternate pasts: histories of worlds that might have been – but never were.

So now, arriving at the crux of the matter, I intend to pose a question of my own. A question which, simply by being asked, raises before us that shimmering membrane which separates the world as it is, from the world as it might be. A world that, even now, could break through the web of contingency – but only if the leaders of the Labour-NZ First-Green Government can find the courage to change course.

It has been nearly 40 years since the imaginations of New Zealanders hungry for change have been seized so forcefully by an incoming prime minister and government. The last time the thin membrane separating the parallel worlds of political reality and political aspiration shimmered so brightly was in 1972.

The difference between now and then, however, is that Norman Kirk and the Third Labour Government actually attempted that most dangerous of all political manoeuvres: the merging of “what is” with “what could be”. Kirk made a wonderful start, but like so many other political leaders who have attempted the manoeuvre, it proved too much for him. With his death, the two worlds straightaway began to disentangle themselves. On election night 1975, the once bright membrane shimmered faintly – and went dark.

At this point, I feel duty-bound to explain the enormous difference between attempting to bring into being that which has never before existed – which his immensely difficult – and allowing the ideas and practices of the past to break through into the present.

The relative ease with which this can be accomplished was demonstrated by the prime ministers and governments that followed Kirk’s. Political and economic concepts that many believed dead and buried passed effortlessly from the world of “what was” and into the world of “what is”. Once inside this world, the world of the present, these ghost concepts began to transform it. More rapidly than many believed possible “now” began to look like “then”. Mass unemployment returned. Inequality grew by leaps and bounds. Homelessness became commonplace. The streets filled with beggars. New Zealand soldiers went off to fight in other people’s wars.

The ghosts of the past are easily summoned. The angels of the future require considerably more persuasion.

What then should Jacinda and her government do?

I will answer that question with a story.

It concerns a political journalist who, in fulfilling some hum-drum errand, found himself in the company of a mysterious band of revellers who insisted that he accompany them to a marvellous party.

He awoke the next morning in a deserted mansion shaded by tall macrocarpa trees and enclosed by a tumble-down and ivy-covered wall. Pushing open the rusted front gates, he stumbled into the streets of a city that seemed greatly changed.

What has become of all the cars? He wondered. And why is the Tino Rangatiratanga flag flying above the library?

When he put these questions to a passer-by, the person looked at him strangely.

“That the flag of the Aotearoan Republic, stranger, and has been these last 25 years.”

The journalist scratched his head in confusion. Only then did he notice the name of the building: ‘The Jacinda Ardern Library and Public Resource Centre’. Making his way inside to the information desk, he asked the librarian for an explanation.

“It’s named after the Prime Minister who ushered-in the Republic back in 2022 – after the uprising.”

“Uprising? What uprising?”

The librarian shook his head in disbelief.

“What uprising? Where have you been for the past quarter-century? When Jacinda and her coalition introduced what was soon being called “The Rollback”, the neoliberals did everything they could to prevent it from happening. When a crazed junior staffer from the Treasury attempted to assassinate the Prime Minister in the Beehive Theatrette, hundreds of thousands turned out to demand the passage of her government’s reforms. The protesters, led by rangatahi, stormed Parliament and proclaimed the Bi-Cultural Republic of Aotearoa. With the neoliberals ousted, and Jacinda elected President, the real changes began. Aotearoa rapidly became a beacon for equality, freedom and ecological wisdom across the whole world.”

“And Simon Bridges?”, asked the journalist, hardly able to believe what he was hearing.

“Bridges! That rogue! Hah! He fled to Australia – still there as far as I know.”

“And Jacinda? Is she still alive?”

“Still alive! Where have you been! Jacinda Ardern is Secretary-General of the United Nations!”

Wide-eyed, the journalist, had only one more question.

“So, who’s running the country now?”

“Why, President Swarbrick, of course. She’s halfway through her second term. In two years’ time, the presidency will pass back to the Tangata Whenua. Most people are picking Pania Newton to succeed Chloe.”

The journalist, thanked the librarian and, plucking a free map of the city from the counter, headed off in what had, only the day before, been the direction of his home.



  1. I feel let down by Labour now as they came in brandishing the clean green banner to clean up our environment and save us from quote “our generations nucear moment”

    At least jacinda should be doing this here. ‘get rail mooving in all our regions’ and why you ask” read this;

    “Report says tiny plastic particles are from clothing, tyres”

    Press release by Citizens Environmental Advocacy Centre. 23rd August 2019.



    Quote; – “Tiny plastic particles from clothing, tyres clogging oceans: report”

    This report shows that tyre particulates are already found to be freely released in the tyre dust as we drive on our roads now.

    Then we are advised these plastic particles are then washed off our roads into our drains, streams, rivers, lakes and aquifers, and finally into our drinking water as we heard all last week over the press.

    So we road users are part of the problem now!

    Sorry but EV vehicles will still emit the same tyre dust toxins as regular gasoline vehicles do.
    So what do we do now?

    This new scientific German report https://www.sott.net/article/418585-Plastic-particles-falling-out-of-sky-with-snow-in-the-Arctic
    ‘Raining plastic’ – QUOTE “fragments of rubber tyres”, signals we need to move now.

    Tyre dust pollution was found by lead scientist, Dr Melanie Bergmann in the laboratory at Germany’s Alfred Wegener Institute in Bremerhaven discovered far more contaminating particles than they’d expected.

    This clearly shows the gravity of the problems we have with too many oil based synthetic tyres used on our roads now.

    These scientific reports are finally making us face reality here to warn us all of very important issues’ – to serious to ignore now.

    We need to reduce our over-use of plastic tyres, and our first signal is to lower truck freight and car use now, by using public passenger rail and move at least half our freight movement onto rail.

    There are no tyres used on rail, as they use only “steel wheels on a steel track” – ‘making rail virtually the lowest emitter of plastics.’

    CEAC is advocating for this Government to use rail to lower freight truck tyre emissions for climate change and our NZ water quality.

    • If you’ve ever worked in a store or area where forklifts are used daily, you will soon understand just how big of an issue tyre dust is. Unfortunately for us, most people dont, thus they flog it off as some great left wing conspiracy to penalize them for driving cars.

    • Normally Chris is the same one among the left. His dream is probably the same dream they had in St Petersburg in 1917 only for the nightmare to begin very soon afterwards…

      But this time we’ll get Socialism right eh Chris?

  2. But be advised. We might have to take down the Dyson Sphere at the core of the Alpha dimension to finally stop the encroachments of the Combine Advisors, and/or collapse the entire multimatrix, using the USS Eldridge from the Philadelphia Experiment, which has been rechristened Borealis


    • There was an Australian Labor Party Cabinet Minister named Frank Crean who said:
      “The Labor Party used to be the cream of the working class, and now it’s the scum of the middle class”.

  3. Chris tell the journalist trapped in 2047 (via the press gallery wormhole) to make their way to Doc Emmett Brown’s house, 1640 Thunberg Way, Wellywind. Doc will then transport him to 2046 where he can place a bet on the third at Trentham, Doc will have the dates.

  4. Who was pointing out to Castro the other day that revolution in reality was actually violent and unpleasant?

  5. Interesting alternate reality. Notice you forgot to mention the re-education camps for thought crimes

  6. What a lovely dream Chris. In such an alternate world I and other beneficiaries would not have to struggle to survive

    • I’ve never had a ‘wet dream’ ? Am I missing something…? 
      I pissed the bed once after getting drunk the day before a close ( To my heart) Aunts funeral. Does that count? ( I stood up, in a manner of speaking,  then fell backwards and head first into her fireplace after a long bout of writing, gallantly supported by wine drinking. A long story. How I never set the house on fire with my burning head is a mystery to me. I lied about that. The fire was out. I, instead, got coal ash in what pretends to be hair. ) 
      “What if Roger Douglas had been hit by a Wellington trolley-bus on his way to Parliament in 1983?”
      If I’d a been the trolly bus driver person he would a been. Repeatedly. I’d a backed up for another go on the fucker. Just to make sure.”
      “What then should Jacinda and her government do?” 
      I have a story of my own @ CT. x
      Jacinda, once divorced from the Earl Grey dahlings, would be well advised to head out into the ‘countryside’. She’d know it when she got there. It’s usually ‘green’ and it has ‘animals’ on it and ‘plants’ grow out of it. I know. Amazing. There’s this thing called ’soil’ and if one were to put water on it, right? And ‘seeds’ ? Together? Still with me? The ‘seeds’, plus ‘water’, plus ‘soil’ will engage in a magic. That magic is called ‘germination’. Again ‘G.E.R.M.E.N.A.T.I.O.N.’ Ger-men-ation germinate |ˈdʒəːmɪneɪt|
      verb [ no obj. ]
      (of a seed or spore) begin to grow and put out shoots after a period of dormancy.
      When that happens? Another thing happens. A few country fellows, females and children demote themselves unknowingly, to the status of ‘farmer’. Down there, amongst society’s dross and detritus, they perform miracles. They weld Nature and science together for your convenience, ultimately, so as you can shovel food down your pie-hole. Or maw. ( informal trap, chops, kisser) .
      Still with me? 
      I’m a slow fellow so you must drop down a gear in the Herne Bay prerequisite Audi R8, the one that one drives to and from your work at the regulated speed of 50kph. But one has one’s dick out right? That’s what matters. All that matters is, get your dick out. Either literally or metaphorically. Try both?
      Meanwhile? The ‘farmer’ who produced that which ferments up your arsehole is contemplating suicide because he,she and the nippers can’t pay the foreign bankster interest rates, local rates and sundry parasitic hangers-on dependant now upon that free money and easy foods flowing in.
      Here’s what Jacinda The Mythical should do. Immediately. Engage with the farmer. Take them away from your inbred cuzzies, the natzo’s. Steal them away. Go on?

  7. …….. And then the journalist ventured down to the waterfront where a large crowd had gathered to greet another food aid ship from the free world and were being held back by the armed mongrel mob constabulary and as he turned onto lambton Quay he saw the entrance to Aotearoa’s re-education camp which was holding the country’s hardest criminals along with the remains of what was the old New Zealand farming community …..

  8. Kia ora Chris
    Normally I would not comment on this sort of speculation, but I have just come home from Ihumaatao where young men and women, mothers and children have been braving the elements, literally walking through the storm for the sake of our country and a future for all our people.
    The protectors of Ihumaatao asked Jacinda Ardern to visit the whenua and the kaitiaki. Your land and my land, my people and your people.
    Jacinda would not.
    So be it. If the mountain will not go to Muhammed, Muhammed must go to the mountain.
    The people, rangatahi, kaumatua and young whaea carrying their tamariki in their arms walked twenty kilometres through a sometimes howling gale to Jacinda Ardern’s office all the while singing himene and waiata.
    They arrived at a locked door.
    Jacinda was not there to greet them.
    A gratuitous insult from the head of the colonial government to the bravest, most noble cohort of our people.
    Jacinda has used this raruraru to divide the races.
    First she said it is for Maori to resolve with Maori, implying that the promotion of justice is no responsibility of the Crown and should be of no interest to Pakeha, and hoping that those Maori who chose to pragmatically collaborate with Fletcher Residential and the Crown would prevail over those who choose freedom and dignity.
    Regardless of which view prevails, it is clear that she desires Maori to fight alone.
    Then, in an act of shameless and shocking political cynicism the colonial regime recruited a force of newly arrived Indian migrants to stand between our people and their land.
    Jacinda now says she will not visit Ihumaatao until Fletchers and the tangata whenua have settled the dispute themselves.
    The implication is that she will visit Ihumaatao only when our people have been defeated by the force of British arms.
    May God forbid that she lives to triumphantly survey the land at Ihumaatao upon which and for which we died.
    But if she does, how will it help her soul? There will be no memorial for her, Chris. She will be forgotten. In an ironic turn of fate, no one will utter her name.
    In 1863 the British Crown evicted our people from their land at Ihumaatao, after they refused a government order to swear allegiance to the British queen. The land was seized and we were defeated, but we did not submit, and we will never submit.
    For the sake of peace, the Crown could buy the land from Fletchers designate it as a reserve and keep it as a tohu to signify that the Crown will never again seek political submission through the use of force.
    For the sake of peace, I offer my entire personal wealth to Fletchers if in that way the land may be protected in perpetuity as a memorial to our struggle for freedom and a place for our mokopuna to play.
    But if the Crown and Fletchers do not choose the way of peace, then I will give my life so that our God Ihoa o nga mano may once again hear our blood calling up from the ground.

    • @Geoff Fischer
      You obviously have no clue as to the background input of the PM that has every chance to securing a positive outcome to this issue, for all. Hopefully you live long enough to eat the words you have written here.

  9. Overlooked by many who see a Maori renaissance under command of comrade Ardern, is that under socialism, as painted by Trotter, all private property to be nationalised to state control.

    That includes ALL Maori land and commercial enterprises.

    Do Maori really think under a communist or socialist regime they will have separate title and control of their assets (like in a capitalist society) whilst the remaining 85% have everything private owned, taken by the state?

    Do Maori really think they will be free, owning their own assets and in some sort of nirvana under a socialist regime where the state is in total control?

    Maori tribalism and independence just wont mix under a socialism/communism regime. The regime just cant allow such freedoms, for other racial parties will want that freedom as well.

      • No more so than the “IF” scenario painted by Trotter.

        But could you answer the question that Maori private (even under a communal tribal model) ownership of assets (land and enterprise) could exist under a socialist/communist regime?

        Like a commune perhaps?

        For if one group is allowed than the ruling regime would have major conflict to control (eg like Hong Kong) by not allowing other groups (along racial or tribal lines) to be able ro enjoy the same controls over their private property. China has to come down hard on Hong Kong otherwise she could have major conflicts in other regions. (hence their implementation of the ultimate communist population control mechanism of the social credit score, to control the masses)

        Seeing that straight out Venuzealian socialism / communism is not aligned with private ownership by anyone, it be interesting if you could paint a picture from your imagination of how a the only alternative, a social democratic society that incorporated private property rights for al,l would be engineered and function?

        A democracy that could easily turn in its outlook from extreme socialism to extreme capitalism.

        Easy to glibly denigrate a vivid imagination, how about destructing the notion that under Venuzualian socialism / communism, Maori sovereignty over privately owned assets would have to disappear along with those same rights for the other 85% of the population.

  10. The colonial regime feeds its public a diet of fake news garnished with a light but potent dressing of fake history.
    The fake news claim is that Ihumaatao is a “Maori issue”.
    It is an issue for Maori, but that does not mean it is a Maori issue.
    It is about justice, culture and the environment, things of concern not only to Maori but also to Pakeha and indeed everyone of us.
    The false history claim is that the confiscation was the result of a race conflict. Not so. The history of Ihumaatao reveals that the New Zealand wars and the confiscations arose out of a political conflict over sovereignty. Maori were expropriated because they refused to swear allegiance to the British Queen, not because they were Maori.
    European settlers were not subject to the proclamation demanding an oath of allegiance. So was that not racist? Yes, but it was not Pakeha racism, it was the Crown using its old tactic of racial divide and rule.
    Many Pakeha would have refused the oath, and then the Crown would have had to declare Pakeha also to be in rebellion, and it could not have forcibly asserted its authority over both Maori and Pakeha. As it was, those Pakeha who sympathized with and supported rangatiratanga and the Maori cause were declared to be rebels at the war’s end, and their lands were confiscated along with Maori land.
    So the Crown was never the agent of Pakeha.
    It was, as it is today, the agent for foreign powers (at that time Britain and Australia, today the Five Eyes Alliance) foreign investors and foreign financial speculators (at that time the likes of Russell and Whitaker, today Fletcher Residential Ltd).
    Few Pakeha fought against Maori in the wars. The burden of fighting fell on Australian and British regiments. Almost certainly more Maori than Pakeha fought for the Crown and against Maori nationalism in the period up to 1872.
    The Crown is still playing its old tricks from 1863. It requires all immigrants to swear allegiance to the British Queen, but does not make that demand of Pakeha or Maori, because it knows both groups were respond with a contemptuous refusal. For its survival the Crown relies on a continuous influx of new migrants who it believes that it can force into political submission, and use for its own evil purposes.
    So let’s get this straight. Ihumaatao is part of an on-going struggle with the Crown, even if some of the kaitiaki at Ihumaatao may not see it that way.
    People, both Maori and Pakeha, have to decide whether they are on the side of rangatiratanga (assuming they fully understand the concept) or British sovereignty (assuming they fully comprehend the race and class bias inherent in that concept).
    The days of the British Crown in New Zealand are numbered. Jacinda does not realise that because her father served the Crown, she grew up in a police household, she went on to work for the British Prime Minister Tony Blair and now as head of the colonial government she is surrounded by security people whose primary loyalty is to the Five Eyes Alliance.
    But the Crown will go, and when it goes it will be through the political action of both Maori and Pakeha who demand a state which is truly democratic, egalitarian, decentralised, indigenous, independent and non-aligned.
    The only reason the British Crown has survived despite a long and shocking history of injustice, is that it has been able to promote the fiction that Maori, Pakeha and new migrants have opposing or separate interests
    There is such a thing as a “Maori issue”. There are issues for Maori – and for the rest. Get involved. Even if you don’t want to take a stand against the Crown as an institution, take a stand for justice at Ihumaatao.

    • @Geoff Fisher
      Yes I shall continue taking a stand alongside our young PM Jacinda Ardern and supporting the incredible job she is doing as leader of this country and in the face of such an alarming number of ignorant doubters.

  11. Kat:
    Tell us what PM Ardern is doing right at Ihumaatao.
    If you yourself have knowledge of “the background input of the PM that has every chance to securing a positive outcome to this issue” then let us also know.
    I only know what I have heard and seen from the Prime Minister but you may see things that the rest of us do not.
    If there are “ignorant doubters” in alarming numbers among the general public, then put them out of their ignorance by listing the facts which lead you to believe that Jacinda is doing an “incredible job” (by which I understand you to mean that she is an effective Prime Minister).

  12. The first “right” move “PM Ardern” made was not going in over the heads of the Te Kawerau a Maki iwi tribal authority. Think about that for a moment then consider that Ihumaatao is about historical injustices that need to be addressed. “PM Ardern” fully gets that those historical injustices need addressing but is astute enough to realise that riding rough shod over one or any of the sides in the Ihumaatao dispute will not make a happy outcome. These historical injustices are not an easy fix however “PM Ardern” has by deploying her strong negotiating skills and promoting discussion between all the sides moved the dispute closer to an acceptable resolution.

  13. If Jacinda’s “first right move” was to do nothing, then I acknowledge that she has followed through consistently.
    In fact you could say that taking no action is her standard political modus operandi. She does nothing about the decision to ban New Zealand firms from dealing with Huawei, because that would be to “ride rough shod” over the security services (which are in theory at least responsible to her government). She will not have an open public inquiry into the Al Nor massacre because that would be to “ride rough shod” over the commission (which she appointed).
    Jacinda never seems to even contemplate using her authority to do what is the right in any situation.
    The question simply is “Should the 32ha at Ihumaatao be preserved as a historical, cultural, environmental and recreational reserve, or should it be covered over with houses?”
    All of us, you and I, Te Kawerau o Maki and SOUL, Jacinda Ardern and Pania Newton can make a judgement on that question and act accordingly.
    Ihumaatao is not about historical injustices of the kind that are or even can be addressed through Treaty of Waitangi negotiations between the Crown and its self-chosen negotiating partners.
    It is about the quest for a livable future for Maori, Pakeha and every other people in this land.
    The history is important, but not because of the raupatu which is widely recognised as a historical injustice and for which there has already been partial reparation from the Crown.
    The importance of Ihumaatao is that our people there refused the Crown’s demand that they swear allegiance to the British Queen, knowing that refusal would mean eviction from their lands, destruction of their villages and forced exile in the Waikato.
    There is a reason why the Crown does not want this act of noble courage, which has few parallels in the history of the world, to be celebrated or memorialized in any way, particularly by the establishment of a reserve at Ihumaatao.
    It is this. Nothing threatens a regime founded on lies more than a people who will not tell a lie, regardless of the consequences. The sheer integrity of our tipuna at Ihumaatao is an example that the Crown cannot tolerate, even today, 156 years after the event.
    Especially it cannot be tolerated today when the regime is telling us to be pragmatic rather idealistic, materialistic and self-seeking rather than God-fearing. Nothing pleases the colonial regime more than to see people abandon their principles, and by telling lies themselves become at one with the regime of lies that goes by the name of the Realm of New Zealand.
    So yes, I understand why Jacinda is anxious not to have Ihumaatao reserved in perpetuity for our mokopuna and their mokopuna.
    No doubt she would like to see the entire 32 hectares sealed over with six inches of reinforced concrete, but the integrity of a people and a nation cannot be destroyed that easily.
    Jacinda has a choice. She can stand with the integrity, honesty and courage of our tipuna, or she can continue to cast her lot with a corrupt colonial regime.

    • Big rant, no substance and confirms you have no clue as to what the PM and her ministers are achieving. In continuing to criticize and insult the PM with uninformed rhetoric you are just noise from the sideline.

      • To “criticize” and to “insult” are two different things.
        I would be interested to know which of my comments you consider to cross the line that divides criticism from insult.
        You claim special or inside knowledge of what the Prime Minister is really up to. Yet the best you can come up with is that she is facilitating negotiations between the parties (Fletcher Residential Ltd, Te Kawerau a Maki and SOUL).
        It should be obvious that there will be no negotiated resolution between these parties independently of the Crown.
        While the Crown supports Fletchers with a heavy police presence, it is unlikely that Fletchers will be the one to back down. Neither will SOUL.
        The only way that the Crown (and Jacinda) can play a constructive role is to purchase the land from Fletchers and designate it as a historical, environmental recreational reserve.
        Will Jacinda do that?

        • @Geoff Fischer
          “Jacinda has used this raruraru to divide the races………”

          Really, was it the white scones she baked, or the brown muffins……..

  14. What is the position of Te Kawerau a Maki and how does the Crown need to take them into account?

    Firstly, and most importantly, Te Kawerau a Maki has no claim and makes no claim on the land at Ihumaatao.
    They do, apparently, have a claim on Fletcher Residential which puts them in the same category as Fletcher’s planners, surveyors, public relations consultants, security forces and other contractors.
    In other words, Te Kawerau a Maki may be owed by Fletcher for services rendered. That is all.
    That is not a problem for the Crown.
    If the Crown was to intervene as a willing buyer and Fletcher was a willing seller, then it would be up to Fletcher to discharge all financial and other obligations to its contractors, whoever they might be.
    Both the Crown and Fletcher would want to ensure that any deal between them would give Fletcher the financial capability to do that. But that is the limit of the Crown responsibility to Fletcher’s commercial partners.
    The Crown does not have to, and could not properly or legally, intervene in negotiations between Fletcher and its commercial contractors.
    Te Kawerau a Maki is simply a red herring in this dispute.
    Jacinda knows that as well as we do.
    So why persist with this argument that the Crown should not “ride rough shod” over Te Kawerau a Maki?

  15. Kat maintains that my comment that “Jacinda has used this raruraru to divide the races………” is an insult to the Prime Minister.
    My comment was not directed to Jacinda as a person. It was not intended to offend her or any of her supporters.
    But the undeniable fact is that in this matter Jacinda is literally and deliberately seeking to divide Maori from other peoples. Her assertion that Ihumaatao is a Maori issue in which Pakeha and others should have no part would have the effect of dividing Maori from Pakeha and all other peoples of this country.
    Thankfully, despite what Jacinda is staying, Maori and Pakeha do stand together at Ihumaatao in the spirit of kotahitanga.
    Pakeha will not abandon Maori to whatever fate Jacinda has in mind for them, and Maori activists at Ihumaatao exclude no one from their struggle for justice and a better life for all peoples of the land.

Comments are closed.