Dan Greenman shared Tatsuhiko Koyama's post to the group: NZ Freedom forum - defending our human rights in New Zealand.


If you ask the people in New Zealand, chances are that you will hear rather standardised responses from them: New Zealand is a developed nation and respects human rights and international treaties as a nation in good standing.

Probably, this is what they have been taught, and they are expected to tell with smiles, if an outsider asks them such a question.

New Zealand Regime, as many authoritarian regimes have been, thrives on imposing official lines and conformity by the people, while suppressing unwanted information from public scrutiny.

Official lines must be safeguarded; no journalist nor politician can go on his or her business, if he or she steps out of the official lines.

Normalisation of organised crimes of fraud in the Court continues to exist in New Zealand because the people are conditioned to act with the expected conformity, maintaining the official image of the nation as the least corrupt.

Organised crimes are taking advantage of using taxpayer-funded public institutions for their crimes while their leaders are highly paid by taxpayers for protecting organised crimes in the courts.

In New Zealand where conformity to the expectation and maintain official images is everything, normality changes.

What is absurd to outsiders seems completely normal in the authoritarian regime which thrives on the images of liberal democracy and the least corrupt nation where human rights no longer exist as the courts are controlled by organised crimes.

NZ doesn't even have legit Constitution and government, as after it relinquished Britain's ruling over it in 1947 by Statute of Westminster, constitution was never been voted by NZ people, thus leaving it and the whole structure of government unlawful.
...And then there is He Whakaputanga - the declaration of independence to consider as well.

If I have this right, in the 1830s the British were concerned that France or the United States might try to claim New Zealand. Because of this, in 1835 Busby, with help from missionaries drafted a statement for chiefs to sign in which they declared themselves rulers of New Zealand.

The version that was signed was in Māori, but an English translation was also made.

The declaration had four articles:
In the first article the chiefs declared New Zealand a ‘w[h]enua rangatira’ (independent state).

The second stated that the ‘kingitanga’ (sovereign power) was held collectively by the (tangata whenua) people of the land.

The third article said a huihuinga (congress) would meet in autumn each year to make laws and decisions.

The fourth article said a copy of this declaration would be sent to the king of England and asked him to be a parent of the infant state.

The declaration was sent to King William IV and was recognised by Britain.

Evidence suggests the rangatira did not cede their sovereignty with the treaty of Waitangi in February 1840. Rather they agreed to share power and authority with the Governor.

There is a long history of their tūpuna protesting about the Crown’s interpretation of the treaty.

But the Crown and friends continue to lie about it.