This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Policy Is is tone of this article too anti? Kyle has a bad historyy, yes, but has since renounced it. Most of what the author calls racial violence he has renounced, and has since admitted as more probably alcohol fuelled violence. Kyle has frequently worked with skinheads, as a social worker trying to integrate them back into the "community" away from racial violence and gangs. He has been open about his past and does not support racial violence now, or so his broadcasts on ZB indicate. I wouldn't exactly call him a far right skinhead, i honestly think he's been "Watered down" a bit from that noiw with his entry into mainstream politics.
i'd expect this page to get a few more hits over the next 12 months anyway. do you live in christchurch? he's ruunning for mayor here which is giving him a lot more exposure... he's just about to go for a live debate on ZB about another of his extremist measures, vigilante patrols or something.
My web-browser setup doesn't let me edit/add to articles easily, so i'll have to leave that one up to you. I've only worked ouot how to post comments only. Hopefully if this article gains more attention you can find more contributers too.
A CORRECTION FROM ANTON FOLJAMBE:
Your article on the New Zealand National Front says that the organization was formed by me in 1996. This is not correct. The NF was first formed by Brian Thompson of Ashburton in 1968. It came and went a couple of times through the 70s and 80s. My then organization, the Conservative Front, took over the name in 1989. I remained leader until resigning from the party in 1997. While I formed a new party, the National Democrats, the NF continued on in a very small way. It took off again when Kyle Chapman assumed the leadership, and is now more successful than ever. I have since rejoined in a backseat capacity.
Anton Foljambe 24.10.04.
A few points: Why is the article placed in the catagory of "Neo-Nazi parties"? Wikipedia says: "The Neo-Nazi movement is identified by devotion to Adolf Hitler, the national insignia of Nazi Germany (e.g. the swastika), and other features specific to Germany from the period 1933 to 1945." Yet neither of these are valid for the New Zealand National Front which is purely New Zealand centric movement.
The NZNF might have descibed itself as "the front line of European colonists" at one stage, I don't know, but on its web-site it now describes itself as "the leading organisation in New Zealand concerned with the preservation and advancement of unique New Zealand European culture." Perhaps an update is in order.
If anyone has a verifiable source for a quote from Chapman about "police action" then please provide it. The quote does not appear in the NZ Herald articles. Thanks, - Willmcw 02:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Any source for the "Rent-a-crowd" comment? If not, it should be removed. - Willmcw 04:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the police described it as a "rent-a-crowd" protest, as quoted on the TV1 News report, october 23rd. Ask TVNZ for a copy of the report from their national archives. As for the other two edits, the NF were surrounded for over 2 hours, against the fence, and again in the train station.. before finaly escaping in assorted cars. Cale olsen was "seriously wounded" and required several stitches, ask the police for the same version. I am reverting to my previous edit as a result. - Molloy
v. sourced, sourc·ing, sourc·es v. tr. To specify the origin of (a communication); document.
I have provided a source for the "rent-a-crowd" statement, don't claim it is non-existent because you are either to lazy or to ignorant to look it up. The news report reads: "..The National Front was opposed today by what the police describes as a rent-a-crowd protest, some of whom are wearing masks... "
I will relent to your argument against the "serious wounds" quote, but the "surrounded" edit will stand, as it is non-debatable. - Molloy
"The National Front has received a substantial amount of public support over 2004, as exhibited by the nearly 2% vote for the NZNF's leader, Kyle Chapman, in a mayoral election."
I'm not sure that a nearly 2% vote qualifies as substantial public support. Seems like a biased statement to me, what does everyone else think? Ziggurat 03:44, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
2% is a rather large percentage, considering several political groups currently holding seats in government are polling less. It should also be noted that the 2% figure is at least 6 months old, and could very well be higher now. NF leader Kyle Chapman also mentions having people walk up to him and shake his hand daily, you should also read several post-protest reports written by the NF. During the protest against the Pedophille Peter Liddel for example, they talk of many cars tooting and waving, just upon seeing the NF logo. I think that constitues a "substantial ammount" of public support. - Molloy
2% nationally is slightly more significant than 2% in a local election; the political groups in question have in times past received much greater support whereas there is no evidence of this regarding the NF. Sure, it could be higher, it could just as easily be lower. Regarding reports written by the NF, it's probably better to rely on objective measures than potentially-biased word-of-mouth descriptions (doesn't every political party want to believe that their support is substantial?). It's difficult to judge what is a substantial amount, of course, but I'm not personally convinced that 2% constitutes this. Ziggurat 07:04, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
I've reworded the first paragraph to say that 98% voted against him instead. 2% on no objective measure can be considered "Substantial", and in statistics, would likely be considered "statistical noise". In a mayoral election in many places, the diference between 2% and 4% is "Did the boys knock off from the pub in time to get to the poll booth". Furthermore I removed the later sentences as they are unsubstantiated, and the 500 figure has been disproved. They would still be a functional party if they had that number and its widely felt now the national front are historical rather than active. The claims of support are simply propaganderous. The National front are one of the most despised political parties in new zealand. - user:DuckMonster:Duck Monster 14 Sept 2005
You said: "The source for the quote is not verifiable, unless you can provide the name of the author, and prove his link to the NZNF". According to the page ( [4] ) it was you yourself that commented, as "Molloy XX". Was this someone pretending to be you, or are you saying there is another senior member of the NZNF who uses the same alias? Thanks. porges 08:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
I never heard of Abovetopsecret before reading that link, and I assure you I did not post that comment, nor is there anyone in the NF using the same alias. I think it's safe to say that the post is faked. Oh, and since we can never tell if its verifiable or not, it does not meet wiki standards for a reputable source, I'm removing it. - Molloy
There are numerous sources which link Bolton to occult groups. He himself admits involvement. What exactly do we need to do to prove it? It seems abundantly clear. - Willmcw 23:36, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Regarding Molloy's edit removing the "satanic" phrase [7] is a letter from Bolton himself in which he describes the group (OLHP) as satanic - "a personal crusade against Satanism per se". Agreed that Bolton is an interesting person... will start up a stub. porges 01:22, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
I just went and looked on the NF site, they don't have Bolton listed as secretary, but someone called "Kylie Roughan". How accurate is the statement on this page then? porges 02:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Re: NF and the election
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molloy I'm sorry to say the NF election process has grinded to a halt due to a pending power struggle within the Head Office ranks. These morons are either illiterate, or completely incompetent with any form of election protocol, and run the NF like a streetgang. They obviously don't know jack sh1t about running a proper organisation, and I smell signs of lefty interference. I'm sick of it.
No offence.
Its a shame you feel that way Molloy. There is no power strugle. The National Secretary has resigned and is forming a new party. Molloy has no facts on this issue and has been given bad information. The Christchurch Election will still be standing 3 people, Wellington are still on track as well. We have had such brake aways many times in the past. The most recent one was when Brent Gebbie left in a huff because he wasnt allowed to be the supreme leader of everone. There is never a leadership strugle, as if there was even a mojority of the active officers wanted me out of the leadership I would resign in a supportive way to allow a new Director to replace me. So there is no dramatic power strugle. Sid has left the Front and some other members may be joining him, such as Molloy obviously. We will still have candidats in Auckland. There will still be a branch in Auckland. When we have all the facts sorted out we will release a report to show what ever has happened.
2508] ...So it seems Bolton left after something happened within NF. porges 02:46, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
The deathshead gig was hosted by the Southern Cross Hammerskins. Unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt, or provide a reputable source to prove that it was hosted by the NZNF, I'm removing the false allegations.
The "I'm a nazi and fuckin proud of it" video footage is taken from 3 news (or the 60 minutes article that re-ran it) over 2 years ago, not the Oct 23rd, 2004 protest. It was filmed in Christchurch, and if you have a good look, you will recognise some of the buildings in the background are from the Christchurch square.
The FightDemBack link has been removed because it has nothing to do with the article, if you want to create an anti-NF article (or add it to the already exsisting anti-facist article), that is fine by me. But it has no place here.
PS. Take your immaturity somewhere else Henderson. unsigned comment by 06:03, Apr 26, 2005 203.109.147.45
In regards to the "I'm a Nazi" quote, I've changed the date from "2 years ago" to 2004 as it was on both 3 News and 20/20 on TV 3 the night of and a few nights after a NF counter-protest of an Anti-Racism rally in Christchurch early 2004.
-- South 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, all the material in DARP on the NZNF was copied into FightDemBack when that blog was started. Therefore, it makes sense to link just to FDB. The links list is already getting long and duplication makes it longer. DARP is has a big link on FDB so it'll still be easily accessible to readers. - Willmcw 06:40, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
I would say that 500 members is small, when we consider the numbers that the major parties have. Also, they don't actually have 500 members yet. If nobody objects, I'm going to change it back.
Who actually owns copyright on this image? The Otago Daily Times must have had some kind of deal or something in order to print it... I'd quite like to have it in the article as it is a well-known/publicised image with regards to the NF porges 22:07, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
New Zealand has a specific exemption in their copyright law for "fair dealing," their equivalent of "fair use". It explicitly allows for reproduction of a work for criticism or review. [10] Boy, that sure is blurry picture. And poorly exposed too. - Willmcw 03:43, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Legal reasons aside, I do not see the validity in using this image to create a first impression on readers. First of all, it does not represent the beliefs of most National Front members, secondly, most people in the photograph are no longer members of the Front, thirdly, I can think of a host of more representative images to use, and finaly, the picture is over 3 years old (A lot has changed since then). I also think the Logo should claim top spot on this page, as it is the dominating factor. - Molloy
By using a photo under the "Fair Use" doctrine, Molloy, as a representative of the NZNF, no longer has "clean hands" and prejudices any attempt by him to sue for improperly using an NZNF photo under fair use. Regarding the Cale Olson photo, it is fairly certain that the injury came during the confrontation following the MultiCultural Aotearoa march in 2004, though exactly how the wound was inflicted is not known. Again, I'm not sure how this photo represents the NZNF beliefs better than the banner picture does, or how it helps the article. - Willmcw 00:04, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Legal notice from the NZNF: [13] - Molloy
What are people's thoughts on pages for some of the other members?
There are individual pages for people like Kyle Chapman and Kerry Bolton, but other major players have lived diverse and interesting lives too... What would people think of pages dedicated to the exploits and wacky adventures of such major NZNF players as:
Jason Molloy, official NZNF legal representative. Troy Cullinane, Hamilton Representative Cale Olsen, Palmerston North rep Brendon Rimmer, NZNF Youth Leader and founder of the New Zealand Nazi Militia? And many more...
I think these would help make the Wikipedia a better and more well-rounded encyclopedia, don't you? We owe it to Wikipedia to make it as comprehensive as possible! Thoughts, anyone? FightDemBack 12:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
You seem to have the IQ of a small child, so I will spell it out for you once and for all: Nic Miller was expelled from the National Front earlier this year. Here is a quote from the Sunday Star Times: "One member, Nicholas Miller, who has been charged with an attack on Somalian immigrants, was expelled last week." [14] - Molloy
As many of you will have noticed, the user Jayjg often comes and reverts valid statements & contributions made in this article, leaving no good reason whatsoever. It only takes 5 minutes to discover his trail of blatant POV is saturated all throughout Wikipedia, anyone looking at his Talk page, or the ADL talk page will quickly realize that. An interesting point to note is that Jayjg himself is a Jew, so will be often found vandalising articles like this to suit his own personal taste (IE: Anti-Nationalist, Pro-Leftist, Pro-Marxist, Pro-Jewish, Pro-Anarchist, Pro-Liberal...). - Molloy
If you think an administrator has acted improperly against you or another editor, you should express your concerns directly to the administrator responsible. Try and come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, you can take further action according to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There have been a number of alternative procedures suggested for the removal of sysop status but none of them have achieved consensus." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I personally think that if a publication is used here, then we should just use a logo, and perhaps link to an actual copy of the publication. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I'd say leave it as it is after the latest edit (21:00, May 16, 2005, by
User:The Anome). Readers can visit the link and make their minds up for themselves. Oh, and if the image was produced by Molloy then what was Bolton's contribution? Did he write the content?
porges 09:29, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
All the other articles on NZ political parties: Maori, Act, National and Labour all use the logo at the top of the page, I think it's only fair to provide continuity. - Molloy
The roman salute is the Nazi Party salute. See Roman salute. porges 03:04, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so the Blackmask think the NZNF is a facist organization. It is true that they are some people. On the other hand, some people think the NZNF is a facist organization. This does not make those people the Blackmask, Molloy. It's quite POV to say that the Blackmask hacked the NZNF page, and not give any justification for their actions. And it's quite POV to not mention that a large number of people, not affiliated with the Blackmask, also oppose the NF for similar reasons. FightDemBack 10:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
One of the policies is "Return to farm-based economy". Didn't Pol Pot try to acheive this for Cambodia, or am I mistaken? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that FDB is a biased source, and should not be quoted as fact. A lot of the information released by FDB is personal (and also falisifed somewhat) in nature. This information includes names and photographs of National Front members. (Including a NF member under the age of 18) These photos have been spread around the net in an attempt to intimidate NF members into silence. This almost resembles a hitlist, and is most surely criminal in nature. I should also state that several NF members have recieved rather severe threats from members and supporters of Matthew Henderson's group, and complaints have been laid with authorities in both New Zealand and Australia. There have also been cases in Wellington of National Front supporters being stalked & sometimes physicaly attacked by Anarchists, no doubt affiliated with FDB. Detective Sutton of Aucklands CIB recently commented to this author that FDB's illegal movements "somewhat alarming", and "should be put an end to". A complete NF investigation and associated press release is pending.
Here is an example of FightDemBack posting a NF supporters address on the internet [19] linked from this page [20]. His name & photo is also posted on the same website.
Publication of these details leave NF members wide open to attack, here is coverage by the NZ Herald of death threats sent by email to a National Front member, a mother of three young children. [21] he MCA moved quickly to condemn the attacks, but FDB remained silent. I should also point out that supporters of FDB have also threatened physical violence against the National Front, on FDB's official website no less. [22] (registration req) I will copy the comments below:
"This group will ... be PHYSICALLY opposing the National Front and all other outwardly racist groups, ...we don’t do posturing or idol threats. We are organised to act."
So, the FDB are posting details of people online, death threats have been received, and now a supporting group say they are prepared and organised to carry out those threats! It all sounds rather intimidating (and somewhat criminal) to me! - Molloy
Could Molloy please clarify a few things:
"Kyle says: some lefty jew is trying to gather files on us and we need someone to befriend him and get information on him. he is actualy a jew
Kyle says: Name: Robert Trigan PH: 0## #### ##### Location: Wellington Email: roberttrigan@gmail.com
Kyle says: we are gathing a file on him
(Trigan? Never heard of him)
Kyle says: yeah me either till this week. he went to the media and got the RSA against us. he claims jewish family shit and it linked with the commies like DARP. he runs the Fight Dem Back in Wellington. maybe NZ. the plan is to actualy set up branches of the Fight Dem back with our own people
Kyle says: they are building information when it is finnished it will have names pics and addresses of our members in NZ and Aussi. when this happens we want to have names and addresses of them to either take them out or plaster all over the net. but we are getting to that stage where it will just be time to send the boys around"
I mean, what's acceptable to you, Jason?
If it gives you any comfort, Jason, we at FDB don't have any intention of publishing any WN addresses when the main site launches... As we've stated in the past, we don't want a Redwatch/Hatewatch situation like in the UK or the States. We're the good guys here, Jason. You've got more to worry about from your so-called friends than us. FightDemBack 04:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Molloy, you neglected to mention several things. Firstly, FDB is not Matthew Henderson's group, but rather a group that Matthew (along with a number of others) are involved with. The Deaths Head website had nothing whatsoever to do with Fight Dem Back - It was an autonomous action by a handful of people, some (not all) of whom now happen to be involved in FDB. In fact, FDB did not yet exist as a functioning group at the time when the Deaths Head press release was put out. FDB made no comment on the death threats because, at the time of the article (05.10.2004), FDB did not exist! You knew that Molloy, so why write otherwise?
The group who posted "This group will ... be PHYSICALLY opposing the National Front and all other outwardly racist groups, ...we don’t do posturing or idol threats. We are organised to act." is NOT FDB, and nor is it connected to FDB in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. The poster of this comment goes by the alias AFA, standing for Anti-Fascist Action, and is seeking to create a completely seperate group from FDB. They simply used the public FDB forum to advertise for support. You knew all this, Molloy, and yet still you neglected to mention it in order to create a false impression. Posted by Asher (in the spirit of full disclosure, I am connected with FDB) 02:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I know the blog FDB has talked about this link, but based on a Google search ( http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=WPCA+NZNF&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt), I think the Stormfront White Nationalist Community is pretty much saying the same thing. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
What's the source for this quote?
Thanks, - Willmcw 05:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
The part about the allocated ten grand becomes officially irrelevant in... 8 days.
When that happens, should that paragraph be removed... or amended with something like, "As the National Front failed to get 500 members, they... don't get any funding."
It makes more sense to me to just ditch the whole paragraph. Thoughts, fellow editors? FightDemBack 11:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
The funding was from the Electoral Commission, who's website with details of party registreation is located at http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/how_to_71A.html posted by Asher 02:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I've quit the NF so you won't see me editing this article very often, I'll still keep an eye on it in order to prohibit it from becoming to 'anti'. - Molloy
Dig www.fightdemback.com for what some of the NF have been up to. Is this incident worthy of inclusion in the article? FightDemBack 10:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
More knitting circle... Ross Baumgarten's (head of NF Youth) name suppression in relation to his alleged involvement in the Auckland mosque vandalism has been lifted. [ [24]]
The article can't mention the first person arrested for their involvement, as their name is still suppressed... Should something about this go in 'activities', or might it be worth creating a new section, like 'illegal activities.' FightDemBack 05:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Nothing about Chapman/Foljambe standing in the 2005 general elections for the Direct Democracy party?
That'd be more appropriate on the pages for Chapman/Foljambe, wouldn't it? For those not following kiwi politics, Chapman is number 10 for DDP and Folly is number 20.
FightDemBack 12:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
So, can anybody explain to me why this article says that the NZNF is affiliated with the PYL and Oz First, while they're "listed as an affiliate" of the WPCA.
It seems to me that being listed as an affiliate of the WPCA is the same as being an affiliate of the WPCA - and when we consider the fact that Chapman has outright said that the NZNF and WPCA are affiliates (on Stormfront) I don't see any reason why the sentence couldn't just read:
The NZNF is an affiliate of the PYL, Oz First and the WPCA.
Hey?
User Fightdemback has provided information that breaks the offical wikipedia policy of no original research. He has also taken into disregard the concept of citing his sources and verifiability. Please take measures to rectify this situation before re-inserting the erroneous information at hand. - VeNom
The article now has two separate sections - "History" & "Activities". Many of the activities (mosque attack, David Irving) were one time events and so are better classified as history. Only the ongoing activities (website, t-shirts) should be under "Activities". Does that make sense? - Willmcw 08:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Just a quick note for those who frequent this page - You might be interested to know that Jason Molloy (who has edited this page a lot) is now in jail for the Mosque attacks mentioned on this page. See http://www.fightdemback.org/2005/11/29/off-to-the-bighouse/ for details.
The NZNF have been condemned, most notably at an anti-racism rally here in Wellington in October 2004. I was one of the speakers, because as I am a retired constitutional ally to former Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie Boys, I felt that I couldn't remain silent, especially in light of the despicable racial attacks on the Jewish gravestones. I am one who believes very strongly that the Race Relations Act, 1971 should be amended to proscribe any political organisation that promotes racism, & for the death penalty to be imposed on the leaders of such organisations. Another organisation that has proved the case for proscription is the Maori Party, which is promoting some very Britanniphobic policies similar to that of ZANU-PF & Sinn Féin/ I.R.A. - ( Aidan Work 06:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC))
I suggest the paragraph below be re-worded. I checked the website and it longer has many of the points that the below article makes. For example it has downloads of flyers and has nothing for sale.
"The NZNF operates a website to promote the party. It lists party policies, has a few free downloads of flyers, and links to an affilited forum and other affiliated groups. It also offers for sale T-shirts, hats, and books on topics of interest to NZNF members, some written by Kerry Bolton. Among the flyers for sale are those titled: "Abortion is genocide", "Zionism is Racist", "NZ Workers sacrificed to coolie labour", and "Family – Folk – Nation". The list of books for sale includes: The Kosher Connection: Drugs, Israel, Gangsters & Zionism; Protocols of the Elders of Zion; We of the white Race – the Coming New Reformation; Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race; Lothrop Stoddard's Rising Tide of Colour; and Adam: the First white Man."
Overall the article looks good, but in the "Activities" section I feel the viewpoint is slightly biased towards Maori and Pacific Islanders:
"Waitangi Day: Wellington and Auckland held demonstrations against the Treaty of Waitangi and the alleged privileges Māori enjoy relative to Pākehā. Māori and Pacific Islanders suffer from below average wages, housing, and health."
In reference to the quote section, I believe that if there is to be a side-note saying that Maori and Pacific Islanders are disadvantaged in areas of wages, housing and health, then it also needs to be included that Maori and Pacific Islanders are in fact actually offered extra opportunities that other races aren't, such as:
Wider age bracket for government funded tai-chi programme http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/5271/$File/dpedlow.pdf Monetary scholarships http://www.takoa.co.nz/govt_scholar1.htm Healthcare opportunities: http://hcro.enigma.co.nz/website/index.cfm?fuseaction=articledisplay&FeatureID=419#Priority%20Areas%20for%20Health%20Care%20for%20Maori
Whether or not this is justified is another point, but if nothing else, the word "alleged" needs to be removed as priveliges are indeed given to Maori and Pacific Islanders that other races do not receive.
I think that you are missing the point when you counter allegations of unfair advantages with figures on wages and housing and health. These National Front guys are asserting that the maori are given benefits by the government, not that they are more qualified and thus recieve higher wages. On their webiste it says that they would like maori to become "full and equal beneficiaries of New Zealand National Front Government social and economic reforms opportunities will exist without need for any further condescending special privileges.", so from this we can assume, I think, that they are talking about the government incentives provided to those of maori descent.
So the situation is as if two men run a race, one is given a headstart. If the advantaged man comes second even with his headstart, then it is true he is worse off, however the fact remains that he has been given an advantage. But the advantage could not change the mans disposition to run fast. Of course in New Zealand the worry I think is that this advantage is leeching resources from other areas, and that these benefits reduce funding to more vital areas, but the general idea is there.
There is no question over whether maori recieve unfair benefits or not. On the University of Auckland admissions site, you can see several courses, i.e Law, have targeted entry for Maoris, meaning they have an easier entry: http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/for/prospective/programmes/getting_in/bursary.cfm. Wallace001 03:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe you're following what I'm saying. I acknowledge that Maori are disadvantaged, but in acknowledging this we also realise that Maori do in fact receive special priveliges because of this. As a result, there is nothing "alleged" about the priveliges they receive, and the word should be removed from the aforementioned section of the article. 222.153.173.158 07:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure, can somebody verify this? Personally I don't see the term as politically charged, and feel that in this case point #3 at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=privilege sums up its use quite well: "a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions." Maori as individuals do receive special rights, so using the phrase "alleged priveliges" therefore is false. (Side note: I have just registered this account so will from now on stop making unregistered posts) King ging 23:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
That seems reasonable, do you agree that the word "alleged" should be removed or does it need to remain there? King ging 05:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
This has taken over 2 weeks so far to sort out, shall I put a "The neutrality of this section is disputed" in the appropriate section or is that unwarranted on this occasion? King ging 21:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know both the terms "privelige" and "special rights" are acceptable, however I think we should wait to see what Drett thinks about the issue so we can get this sorted out properly. King ging 03:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It's been over a month since the issue was first raised, shall we continue to wait for Drett or begin putting changes into place? King ging 03:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This isn't about what the party believes, it's about what the party was actually protesting against. If they were protesting against the special rights that Maori in actual fact do receive relative to other New Zealanders then the word alleged makes the section incorrect, and needs to be removed. King ging 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Well in that case the article needs to show this distinction between what they actually protested against and the priveliges that maori actually do receive. King ging 05:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Policy Is is tone of this article too anti? Kyle has a bad historyy, yes, but has since renounced it. Most of what the author calls racial violence he has renounced, and has since admitted as more probably alcohol fuelled violence. Kyle has frequently worked with skinheads, as a social worker trying to integrate them back into the "community" away from racial violence and gangs. He has been open about his past and does not support racial violence now, or so his broadcasts on ZB indicate. I wouldn't exactly call him a far right skinhead, i honestly think he's been "Watered down" a bit from that noiw with his entry into mainstream politics.
i'd expect this page to get a few more hits over the next 12 months anyway. do you live in christchurch? he's ruunning for mayor here which is giving him a lot more exposure... he's just about to go for a live debate on ZB about another of his extremist measures, vigilante patrols or something.
My web-browser setup doesn't let me edit/add to articles easily, so i'll have to leave that one up to you. I've only worked ouot how to post comments only. Hopefully if this article gains more attention you can find more contributers too.
A CORRECTION FROM ANTON FOLJAMBE:
Your article on the New Zealand National Front says that the organization was formed by me in 1996. This is not correct. The NF was first formed by Brian Thompson of Ashburton in 1968. It came and went a couple of times through the 70s and 80s. My then organization, the Conservative Front, took over the name in 1989. I remained leader until resigning from the party in 1997. While I formed a new party, the National Democrats, the NF continued on in a very small way. It took off again when Kyle Chapman assumed the leadership, and is now more successful than ever. I have since rejoined in a backseat capacity.
Anton Foljambe 24.10.04.
A few points: Why is the article placed in the catagory of "Neo-Nazi parties"? Wikipedia says: "The Neo-Nazi movement is identified by devotion to Adolf Hitler, the national insignia of Nazi Germany (e.g. the swastika), and other features specific to Germany from the period 1933 to 1945." Yet neither of these are valid for the New Zealand National Front which is purely New Zealand centric movement.
The NZNF might have descibed itself as "the front line of European colonists" at one stage, I don't know, but on its web-site it now describes itself as "the leading organisation in New Zealand concerned with the preservation and advancement of unique New Zealand European culture." Perhaps an update is in order.
If anyone has a verifiable source for a quote from Chapman about "police action" then please provide it. The quote does not appear in the NZ Herald articles. Thanks, - Willmcw 02:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Any source for the "Rent-a-crowd" comment? If not, it should be removed. - Willmcw 04:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the police described it as a "rent-a-crowd" protest, as quoted on the TV1 News report, october 23rd. Ask TVNZ for a copy of the report from their national archives. As for the other two edits, the NF were surrounded for over 2 hours, against the fence, and again in the train station.. before finaly escaping in assorted cars. Cale olsen was "seriously wounded" and required several stitches, ask the police for the same version. I am reverting to my previous edit as a result. - Molloy
v. sourced, sourc·ing, sourc·es v. tr. To specify the origin of (a communication); document.
I have provided a source for the "rent-a-crowd" statement, don't claim it is non-existent because you are either to lazy or to ignorant to look it up. The news report reads: "..The National Front was opposed today by what the police describes as a rent-a-crowd protest, some of whom are wearing masks... "
I will relent to your argument against the "serious wounds" quote, but the "surrounded" edit will stand, as it is non-debatable. - Molloy
"The National Front has received a substantial amount of public support over 2004, as exhibited by the nearly 2% vote for the NZNF's leader, Kyle Chapman, in a mayoral election."
I'm not sure that a nearly 2% vote qualifies as substantial public support. Seems like a biased statement to me, what does everyone else think? Ziggurat 03:44, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
2% is a rather large percentage, considering several political groups currently holding seats in government are polling less. It should also be noted that the 2% figure is at least 6 months old, and could very well be higher now. NF leader Kyle Chapman also mentions having people walk up to him and shake his hand daily, you should also read several post-protest reports written by the NF. During the protest against the Pedophille Peter Liddel for example, they talk of many cars tooting and waving, just upon seeing the NF logo. I think that constitues a "substantial ammount" of public support. - Molloy
2% nationally is slightly more significant than 2% in a local election; the political groups in question have in times past received much greater support whereas there is no evidence of this regarding the NF. Sure, it could be higher, it could just as easily be lower. Regarding reports written by the NF, it's probably better to rely on objective measures than potentially-biased word-of-mouth descriptions (doesn't every political party want to believe that their support is substantial?). It's difficult to judge what is a substantial amount, of course, but I'm not personally convinced that 2% constitutes this. Ziggurat 07:04, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
I've reworded the first paragraph to say that 98% voted against him instead. 2% on no objective measure can be considered "Substantial", and in statistics, would likely be considered "statistical noise". In a mayoral election in many places, the diference between 2% and 4% is "Did the boys knock off from the pub in time to get to the poll booth". Furthermore I removed the later sentences as they are unsubstantiated, and the 500 figure has been disproved. They would still be a functional party if they had that number and its widely felt now the national front are historical rather than active. The claims of support are simply propaganderous. The National front are one of the most despised political parties in new zealand. - user:DuckMonster:Duck Monster 14 Sept 2005
You said: "The source for the quote is not verifiable, unless you can provide the name of the author, and prove his link to the NZNF". According to the page ( [4] ) it was you yourself that commented, as "Molloy XX". Was this someone pretending to be you, or are you saying there is another senior member of the NZNF who uses the same alias? Thanks. porges 08:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
I never heard of Abovetopsecret before reading that link, and I assure you I did not post that comment, nor is there anyone in the NF using the same alias. I think it's safe to say that the post is faked. Oh, and since we can never tell if its verifiable or not, it does not meet wiki standards for a reputable source, I'm removing it. - Molloy
There are numerous sources which link Bolton to occult groups. He himself admits involvement. What exactly do we need to do to prove it? It seems abundantly clear. - Willmcw 23:36, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Regarding Molloy's edit removing the "satanic" phrase [7] is a letter from Bolton himself in which he describes the group (OLHP) as satanic - "a personal crusade against Satanism per se". Agreed that Bolton is an interesting person... will start up a stub. porges 01:22, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
I just went and looked on the NF site, they don't have Bolton listed as secretary, but someone called "Kylie Roughan". How accurate is the statement on this page then? porges 02:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Re: NF and the election
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molloy I'm sorry to say the NF election process has grinded to a halt due to a pending power struggle within the Head Office ranks. These morons are either illiterate, or completely incompetent with any form of election protocol, and run the NF like a streetgang. They obviously don't know jack sh1t about running a proper organisation, and I smell signs of lefty interference. I'm sick of it.
No offence.
Its a shame you feel that way Molloy. There is no power strugle. The National Secretary has resigned and is forming a new party. Molloy has no facts on this issue and has been given bad information. The Christchurch Election will still be standing 3 people, Wellington are still on track as well. We have had such brake aways many times in the past. The most recent one was when Brent Gebbie left in a huff because he wasnt allowed to be the supreme leader of everone. There is never a leadership strugle, as if there was even a mojority of the active officers wanted me out of the leadership I would resign in a supportive way to allow a new Director to replace me. So there is no dramatic power strugle. Sid has left the Front and some other members may be joining him, such as Molloy obviously. We will still have candidats in Auckland. There will still be a branch in Auckland. When we have all the facts sorted out we will release a report to show what ever has happened.
2508] ...So it seems Bolton left after something happened within NF. porges 02:46, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
The deathshead gig was hosted by the Southern Cross Hammerskins. Unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt, or provide a reputable source to prove that it was hosted by the NZNF, I'm removing the false allegations.
The "I'm a nazi and fuckin proud of it" video footage is taken from 3 news (or the 60 minutes article that re-ran it) over 2 years ago, not the Oct 23rd, 2004 protest. It was filmed in Christchurch, and if you have a good look, you will recognise some of the buildings in the background are from the Christchurch square.
The FightDemBack link has been removed because it has nothing to do with the article, if you want to create an anti-NF article (or add it to the already exsisting anti-facist article), that is fine by me. But it has no place here.
PS. Take your immaturity somewhere else Henderson. unsigned comment by 06:03, Apr 26, 2005 203.109.147.45
In regards to the "I'm a Nazi" quote, I've changed the date from "2 years ago" to 2004 as it was on both 3 News and 20/20 on TV 3 the night of and a few nights after a NF counter-protest of an Anti-Racism rally in Christchurch early 2004.
-- South 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, all the material in DARP on the NZNF was copied into FightDemBack when that blog was started. Therefore, it makes sense to link just to FDB. The links list is already getting long and duplication makes it longer. DARP is has a big link on FDB so it'll still be easily accessible to readers. - Willmcw 06:40, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
I would say that 500 members is small, when we consider the numbers that the major parties have. Also, they don't actually have 500 members yet. If nobody objects, I'm going to change it back.
Who actually owns copyright on this image? The Otago Daily Times must have had some kind of deal or something in order to print it... I'd quite like to have it in the article as it is a well-known/publicised image with regards to the NF porges 22:07, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
New Zealand has a specific exemption in their copyright law for "fair dealing," their equivalent of "fair use". It explicitly allows for reproduction of a work for criticism or review. [10] Boy, that sure is blurry picture. And poorly exposed too. - Willmcw 03:43, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Legal reasons aside, I do not see the validity in using this image to create a first impression on readers. First of all, it does not represent the beliefs of most National Front members, secondly, most people in the photograph are no longer members of the Front, thirdly, I can think of a host of more representative images to use, and finaly, the picture is over 3 years old (A lot has changed since then). I also think the Logo should claim top spot on this page, as it is the dominating factor. - Molloy
By using a photo under the "Fair Use" doctrine, Molloy, as a representative of the NZNF, no longer has "clean hands" and prejudices any attempt by him to sue for improperly using an NZNF photo under fair use. Regarding the Cale Olson photo, it is fairly certain that the injury came during the confrontation following the MultiCultural Aotearoa march in 2004, though exactly how the wound was inflicted is not known. Again, I'm not sure how this photo represents the NZNF beliefs better than the banner picture does, or how it helps the article. - Willmcw 00:04, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Legal notice from the NZNF: [13] - Molloy
What are people's thoughts on pages for some of the other members?
There are individual pages for people like Kyle Chapman and Kerry Bolton, but other major players have lived diverse and interesting lives too... What would people think of pages dedicated to the exploits and wacky adventures of such major NZNF players as:
Jason Molloy, official NZNF legal representative. Troy Cullinane, Hamilton Representative Cale Olsen, Palmerston North rep Brendon Rimmer, NZNF Youth Leader and founder of the New Zealand Nazi Militia? And many more...
I think these would help make the Wikipedia a better and more well-rounded encyclopedia, don't you? We owe it to Wikipedia to make it as comprehensive as possible! Thoughts, anyone? FightDemBack 12:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
You seem to have the IQ of a small child, so I will spell it out for you once and for all: Nic Miller was expelled from the National Front earlier this year. Here is a quote from the Sunday Star Times: "One member, Nicholas Miller, who has been charged with an attack on Somalian immigrants, was expelled last week." [14] - Molloy
As many of you will have noticed, the user Jayjg often comes and reverts valid statements & contributions made in this article, leaving no good reason whatsoever. It only takes 5 minutes to discover his trail of blatant POV is saturated all throughout Wikipedia, anyone looking at his Talk page, or the ADL talk page will quickly realize that. An interesting point to note is that Jayjg himself is a Jew, so will be often found vandalising articles like this to suit his own personal taste (IE: Anti-Nationalist, Pro-Leftist, Pro-Marxist, Pro-Jewish, Pro-Anarchist, Pro-Liberal...). - Molloy
If you think an administrator has acted improperly against you or another editor, you should express your concerns directly to the administrator responsible. Try and come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, you can take further action according to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There have been a number of alternative procedures suggested for the removal of sysop status but none of them have achieved consensus." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I personally think that if a publication is used here, then we should just use a logo, and perhaps link to an actual copy of the publication. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I'd say leave it as it is after the latest edit (21:00, May 16, 2005, by
User:The Anome). Readers can visit the link and make their minds up for themselves. Oh, and if the image was produced by Molloy then what was Bolton's contribution? Did he write the content?
porges 09:29, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
All the other articles on NZ political parties: Maori, Act, National and Labour all use the logo at the top of the page, I think it's only fair to provide continuity. - Molloy
The roman salute is the Nazi Party salute. See Roman salute. porges 03:04, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so the Blackmask think the NZNF is a facist organization. It is true that they are some people. On the other hand, some people think the NZNF is a facist organization. This does not make those people the Blackmask, Molloy. It's quite POV to say that the Blackmask hacked the NZNF page, and not give any justification for their actions. And it's quite POV to not mention that a large number of people, not affiliated with the Blackmask, also oppose the NF for similar reasons. FightDemBack 10:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
One of the policies is "Return to farm-based economy". Didn't Pol Pot try to acheive this for Cambodia, or am I mistaken? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that FDB is a biased source, and should not be quoted as fact. A lot of the information released by FDB is personal (and also falisifed somewhat) in nature. This information includes names and photographs of National Front members. (Including a NF member under the age of 18) These photos have been spread around the net in an attempt to intimidate NF members into silence. This almost resembles a hitlist, and is most surely criminal in nature. I should also state that several NF members have recieved rather severe threats from members and supporters of Matthew Henderson's group, and complaints have been laid with authorities in both New Zealand and Australia. There have also been cases in Wellington of National Front supporters being stalked & sometimes physicaly attacked by Anarchists, no doubt affiliated with FDB. Detective Sutton of Aucklands CIB recently commented to this author that FDB's illegal movements "somewhat alarming", and "should be put an end to". A complete NF investigation and associated press release is pending.
Here is an example of FightDemBack posting a NF supporters address on the internet [19] linked from this page [20]. His name & photo is also posted on the same website.
Publication of these details leave NF members wide open to attack, here is coverage by the NZ Herald of death threats sent by email to a National Front member, a mother of three young children. [21] he MCA moved quickly to condemn the attacks, but FDB remained silent. I should also point out that supporters of FDB have also threatened physical violence against the National Front, on FDB's official website no less. [22] (registration req) I will copy the comments below:
"This group will ... be PHYSICALLY opposing the National Front and all other outwardly racist groups, ...we don’t do posturing or idol threats. We are organised to act."
So, the FDB are posting details of people online, death threats have been received, and now a supporting group say they are prepared and organised to carry out those threats! It all sounds rather intimidating (and somewhat criminal) to me! - Molloy
Could Molloy please clarify a few things:
"Kyle says: some lefty jew is trying to gather files on us and we need someone to befriend him and get information on him. he is actualy a jew
Kyle says: Name: Robert Trigan PH: 0## #### ##### Location: Wellington Email: roberttrigan@gmail.com
Kyle says: we are gathing a file on him
(Trigan? Never heard of him)
Kyle says: yeah me either till this week. he went to the media and got the RSA against us. he claims jewish family shit and it linked with the commies like DARP. he runs the Fight Dem Back in Wellington. maybe NZ. the plan is to actualy set up branches of the Fight Dem back with our own people
Kyle says: they are building information when it is finnished it will have names pics and addresses of our members in NZ and Aussi. when this happens we want to have names and addresses of them to either take them out or plaster all over the net. but we are getting to that stage where it will just be time to send the boys around"
I mean, what's acceptable to you, Jason?
If it gives you any comfort, Jason, we at FDB don't have any intention of publishing any WN addresses when the main site launches... As we've stated in the past, we don't want a Redwatch/Hatewatch situation like in the UK or the States. We're the good guys here, Jason. You've got more to worry about from your so-called friends than us. FightDemBack 04:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Molloy, you neglected to mention several things. Firstly, FDB is not Matthew Henderson's group, but rather a group that Matthew (along with a number of others) are involved with. The Deaths Head website had nothing whatsoever to do with Fight Dem Back - It was an autonomous action by a handful of people, some (not all) of whom now happen to be involved in FDB. In fact, FDB did not yet exist as a functioning group at the time when the Deaths Head press release was put out. FDB made no comment on the death threats because, at the time of the article (05.10.2004), FDB did not exist! You knew that Molloy, so why write otherwise?
The group who posted "This group will ... be PHYSICALLY opposing the National Front and all other outwardly racist groups, ...we don’t do posturing or idol threats. We are organised to act." is NOT FDB, and nor is it connected to FDB in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. The poster of this comment goes by the alias AFA, standing for Anti-Fascist Action, and is seeking to create a completely seperate group from FDB. They simply used the public FDB forum to advertise for support. You knew all this, Molloy, and yet still you neglected to mention it in order to create a false impression. Posted by Asher (in the spirit of full disclosure, I am connected with FDB) 02:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I know the blog FDB has talked about this link, but based on a Google search ( http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=WPCA+NZNF&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt), I think the Stormfront White Nationalist Community is pretty much saying the same thing. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
What's the source for this quote?
Thanks, - Willmcw 05:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
The part about the allocated ten grand becomes officially irrelevant in... 8 days.
When that happens, should that paragraph be removed... or amended with something like, "As the National Front failed to get 500 members, they... don't get any funding."
It makes more sense to me to just ditch the whole paragraph. Thoughts, fellow editors? FightDemBack 11:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
The funding was from the Electoral Commission, who's website with details of party registreation is located at http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/how_to_71A.html posted by Asher 02:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I've quit the NF so you won't see me editing this article very often, I'll still keep an eye on it in order to prohibit it from becoming to 'anti'. - Molloy
Dig www.fightdemback.com for what some of the NF have been up to. Is this incident worthy of inclusion in the article? FightDemBack 10:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
More knitting circle... Ross Baumgarten's (head of NF Youth) name suppression in relation to his alleged involvement in the Auckland mosque vandalism has been lifted. [ [24]]
The article can't mention the first person arrested for their involvement, as their name is still suppressed... Should something about this go in 'activities', or might it be worth creating a new section, like 'illegal activities.' FightDemBack 05:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Nothing about Chapman/Foljambe standing in the 2005 general elections for the Direct Democracy party?
That'd be more appropriate on the pages for Chapman/Foljambe, wouldn't it? For those not following kiwi politics, Chapman is number 10 for DDP and Folly is number 20.
FightDemBack 12:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
So, can anybody explain to me why this article says that the NZNF is affiliated with the PYL and Oz First, while they're "listed as an affiliate" of the WPCA.
It seems to me that being listed as an affiliate of the WPCA is the same as being an affiliate of the WPCA - and when we consider the fact that Chapman has outright said that the NZNF and WPCA are affiliates (on Stormfront) I don't see any reason why the sentence couldn't just read:
The NZNF is an affiliate of the PYL, Oz First and the WPCA.
Hey?
User Fightdemback has provided information that breaks the offical wikipedia policy of no original research. He has also taken into disregard the concept of citing his sources and verifiability. Please take measures to rectify this situation before re-inserting the erroneous information at hand. - VeNom
The article now has two separate sections - "History" & "Activities". Many of the activities (mosque attack, David Irving) were one time events and so are better classified as history. Only the ongoing activities (website, t-shirts) should be under "Activities". Does that make sense? - Willmcw 08:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Just a quick note for those who frequent this page - You might be interested to know that Jason Molloy (who has edited this page a lot) is now in jail for the Mosque attacks mentioned on this page. See http://www.fightdemback.org/2005/11/29/off-to-the-bighouse/ for details.
The NZNF have been condemned, most notably at an anti-racism rally here in Wellington in October 2004. I was one of the speakers, because as I am a retired constitutional ally to former Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie Boys, I felt that I couldn't remain silent, especially in light of the despicable racial attacks on the Jewish gravestones. I am one who believes very strongly that the Race Relations Act, 1971 should be amended to proscribe any political organisation that promotes racism, & for the death penalty to be imposed on the leaders of such organisations. Another organisation that has proved the case for proscription is the Maori Party, which is promoting some very Britanniphobic policies similar to that of ZANU-PF & Sinn Féin/ I.R.A. - ( Aidan Work 06:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC))
I suggest the paragraph below be re-worded. I checked the website and it longer has many of the points that the below article makes. For example it has downloads of flyers and has nothing for sale.
"The NZNF operates a website to promote the party. It lists party policies, has a few free downloads of flyers, and links to an affilited forum and other affiliated groups. It also offers for sale T-shirts, hats, and books on topics of interest to NZNF members, some written by Kerry Bolton. Among the flyers for sale are those titled: "Abortion is genocide", "Zionism is Racist", "NZ Workers sacrificed to coolie labour", and "Family – Folk – Nation". The list of books for sale includes: The Kosher Connection: Drugs, Israel, Gangsters & Zionism; Protocols of the Elders of Zion; We of the white Race – the Coming New Reformation; Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race; Lothrop Stoddard's Rising Tide of Colour; and Adam: the First white Man."
Overall the article looks good, but in the "Activities" section I feel the viewpoint is slightly biased towards Maori and Pacific Islanders:
"Waitangi Day: Wellington and Auckland held demonstrations against the Treaty of Waitangi and the alleged privileges Māori enjoy relative to Pākehā. Māori and Pacific Islanders suffer from below average wages, housing, and health."
In reference to the quote section, I believe that if there is to be a side-note saying that Maori and Pacific Islanders are disadvantaged in areas of wages, housing and health, then it also needs to be included that Maori and Pacific Islanders are in fact actually offered extra opportunities that other races aren't, such as:
Wider age bracket for government funded tai-chi programme http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/5271/$File/dpedlow.pdf Monetary scholarships http://www.takoa.co.nz/govt_scholar1.htm Healthcare opportunities: http://hcro.enigma.co.nz/website/index.cfm?fuseaction=articledisplay&FeatureID=419#Priority%20Areas%20for%20Health%20Care%20for%20Maori
Whether or not this is justified is another point, but if nothing else, the word "alleged" needs to be removed as priveliges are indeed given to Maori and Pacific Islanders that other races do not receive.
I think that you are missing the point when you counter allegations of unfair advantages with figures on wages and housing and health. These National Front guys are asserting that the maori are given benefits by the government, not that they are more qualified and thus recieve higher wages. On their webiste it says that they would like maori to become "full and equal beneficiaries of New Zealand National Front Government social and economic reforms opportunities will exist without need for any further condescending special privileges.", so from this we can assume, I think, that they are talking about the government incentives provided to those of maori descent.
So the situation is as if two men run a race, one is given a headstart. If the advantaged man comes second even with his headstart, then it is true he is worse off, however the fact remains that he has been given an advantage. But the advantage could not change the mans disposition to run fast. Of course in New Zealand the worry I think is that this advantage is leeching resources from other areas, and that these benefits reduce funding to more vital areas, but the general idea is there.
There is no question over whether maori recieve unfair benefits or not. On the University of Auckland admissions site, you can see several courses, i.e Law, have targeted entry for Maoris, meaning they have an easier entry: http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/for/prospective/programmes/getting_in/bursary.cfm. Wallace001 03:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe you're following what I'm saying. I acknowledge that Maori are disadvantaged, but in acknowledging this we also realise that Maori do in fact receive special priveliges because of this. As a result, there is nothing "alleged" about the priveliges they receive, and the word should be removed from the aforementioned section of the article. 222.153.173.158 07:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure, can somebody verify this? Personally I don't see the term as politically charged, and feel that in this case point #3 at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=privilege sums up its use quite well: "a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions." Maori as individuals do receive special rights, so using the phrase "alleged priveliges" therefore is false. (Side note: I have just registered this account so will from now on stop making unregistered posts) King ging 23:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
That seems reasonable, do you agree that the word "alleged" should be removed or does it need to remain there? King ging 05:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
This has taken over 2 weeks so far to sort out, shall I put a "The neutrality of this section is disputed" in the appropriate section or is that unwarranted on this occasion? King ging 21:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know both the terms "privelige" and "special rights" are acceptable, however I think we should wait to see what Drett thinks about the issue so we can get this sorted out properly. King ging 03:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It's been over a month since the issue was first raised, shall we continue to wait for Drett or begin putting changes into place? King ging 03:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This isn't about what the party believes, it's about what the party was actually protesting against. If they were protesting against the special rights that Maori in actual fact do receive relative to other New Zealanders then the word alleged makes the section incorrect, and needs to be removed. King ging 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Well in that case the article needs to show this distinction between what they actually protested against and the priveliges that maori actually do receive. King ging 05:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)