Herald picks up the hypocrisy

The NZ Herald has written a substantive story on the hypocrisy shown by Peters in labelling Dr Brash evil and implicitly comparing him to Hitler for comments which are very similiar to ones Peters himself made in Sep 2000. As far as I can tell online, the Dom Post and Press have not reported this.

Now Peters has said you can’t compare the two sets of comments, but of course you can.

Brash’s comments in Sep 2006were off the cuff and specifically in response to a speech advocating a seperate justice system for Maori. His actual words were:

“The judge’s comments put him at odds with my view of the way New Zealand should proceed,” said Dr Brash. “He continues to talk as if the Maori remain a distinct indigenous people.

“There are clearly many New Zealanders who do see themselves as distinctly and distinctively Maori – but it is also clear there are few, if any, fully Maori left here.

“There has been a lot of intermarriage and that has been welcome.”

Now look at what Peters said in Sep 2000:

* He used blood quantum as the basis on which to get rid of the Maori Seats
* He refers to Maori having “only a few drops” of Maori blood
* He suggests non pure-blood Maori should get less from Treaty settlements than pure bloods
* He challenges the whole notion of Treaty claims and settlements due to the diluted blood quantum

And this was in a pre-prepared speech.

And again in a different speech he repeats the 1 in 512 blood reference. He also says:

The biggest mistake the advocates of the “closing the gaps” programme make is believing that there is a large disadvantaged population in New Zealand clearly defined as “Maori”.

That is an ethnic myth. It’s about as silly and offensive as those who think that all Asians are the same.

There are actually a vast variety of so-called “Maori” people from different socio-economic, geographic and political backgrounds as diverse as those of us with a European heritage.

A single Maori ethnic identity is largely the creation of the ignorant and the bigoted as is the term “urban Maori”.

And how is this for trying to remove identity from urban Maori:

Maori relate back to tribe – to origin and ancestry. They know precisely who ethnically they are.

If you can’t or don’t do that how Maori are you?

Why then in the name of many of these people – Maori in appearance only – are all these social and economic policies being concocted?

Also just last year Peters was attacking the official Stats definition of Maori (which is self-identification) as “shonky” and too large.

Is charlatan the right label for what we are seeing?