Investigate HIS, Feb/March 2015_preview

INVESTIGATE

THE JIHADIS NEXT DOOR

WHAT’S REALLY RADICALISING MODERATE MUSLIMS?

NEW ZEALAND’S BEST NEWS MAGAZINE

WAITANGI DAZE

WHY AREN’T WE BEING TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT OUR HISTORY?

ASK JEEVES

THE PG WODEHOUSE STORY Feb/Mar 2015, $8.60

MARK STEYN AMY BROOKE & MORE

Contents Feb/Mar 2015

14

THE JIHADIS NEXT DOOR

What’s really radicalising young Muslims? The shocking answer: it could be you. Just the ‘stench’ of living in Western culture is encouraging many young men to join extreme forms of Islam to compensate, and the hate preachers are there to recruit them. IAN WISHART with the stunning revelations

22 THE JIHADIS ON CAMPUS

22

The word ‘Islamophobia’ is flung around, but ShariaWatch UK has issued a new report suggesting westerners have good reason to be phobic about the growing extremism of Islam

28 PG’s TIPS

It’s the fortieth anniversary of the death of brilliant writer PG Wodehouse. HAL COLEBATCH re-evaluates the literary contribution of the man who gave us Jeeves & Wooster

IN HERS

WAITANGI DAZE

28

The tribunal has ruled Ngapuhi never ceded sovereignty, is it telling the truth? IAN WISHART argues no, and lays out the evidence

Contents

34 38

06 Editor

Speaks for itself, really

08 Communiques Your say

46

10 Steynpost Mark Steyn

12 Right & Wrong David Garrett

34 Invest

42 Science

36 Gadgets & Mall

44 Bookcase

38 Tech

46 Movies

40 Online

48 Consider This

Money in 2015 The latest toys

Self-drive cars Hacking medical records

Bad luck and cancer Michael Morrissey American Sniper Amy Brooke

36

rugged smartphones for the Beach, Boat, Bush, mountains, forestrY, farm, Building site, rescue serVices, hunters, hiKers, fishers, campers...

$579 PHONE - SPARK, 546NZ MODEL Android 4.2 Rugged Phone, 3G, WiFi, GPS, Bluetooth, PTT IP68 Waterproof, Dustproof and Shock Resistant 4.5 Inch Display Dual sim (Spark in Sim 1, Voda/2Deg in Sim 2) Powerful 1.2GHz Quad Core CPU 1GB RAM 8MP Camera Specifically tuned to NZ mobile frequencies; 3G service is Spark 12 month warranty against manufacturing defects

$349 ENTRY-LEVEL PHONE - SPARK, 637NZ MODEL Android 4.2 Rugged Phone, 3G, WiFi, GPS, Bluetooth IP68 Waterproof, Dustproof and Shock Resistant 4 Inch Display Dual sim (Spark in Sim 1, Voda/2Deg in Sim 2) 1.3GHz Dual Core CPU 512MB RAM 5MP Camera Specifically tuned to NZ mobile frequencies; 3G service is Spark 12 month warranty against manufacturing defects

$449 PHONE - VODAFONE, 675NZ MODEL Android 4.3 Rugged Phone, WiFi, 3G, GPS, Bluetooth IP68 Waterproof, Dustproof and Shock Resistant 4 Inch Display Dual sim (Can run Vodafone & 2Degrees) Powerful 1.2 GHz Quad Core CPU 1GB RAM 5MP Camera Specifically tuned to NZ mobile frequencies; 3G service is Vodafone or 2Degrees 12 month warranty against manufacturing defects

when the Feb/Mar going gets tough, the tough 4 INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.COM 2015

NEED A PHONE THAT WORKS WHERE OTHERS CAN’T? Our rugged smartphones are waterproof, dustproof and highly shock resistant, and with dual-sim technology you get more cellphone coverage in more places than any phone on offer from any of New Zealand’s three big mobile network providers.

WATERPROOF DUSTPROOF SHOCK RESISTANT HUGE BATTERY LIFE DUAL SIM GPS

0800 747 007 www.ianwishart.com for full range and specs

reach for a rugged smartphone Feb/Mar 2015 INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.COM

5

EDITORIAL

By Ian Wishart

Je ne suis pas Charlie

T

here is nothing more odious, more obnoxious, than journalists and others in the liberal media engaging in selfcongratulatory fawning and onanism as they compete to prove themselves the biggest or most ignorant prats on the planet. The massacre at French journal Charlie Hebdo brought out the worst in that kind of media hypocrisy.

Suddenly, every Gen-Xer with a Twitter account, every Millennial with Instagram, was telling anyone who would listen that they, too, were Charlie. Yeah, right. So they were posting offensive cartoons of the prophet Muhammed on their accounts, in their newspapers or on their TV broadcasts?

Not by a long shot.

Free speech is one of those rights that has to be exercised carefully. One restrain on it is defamation law, which emerged as a less fatal alternative to duelling when gentlemen fell out over an insult. Because, traditionally, the ultimate comeback

from exercising one’s free speech has always been the possibility of death or financial ruin.

The editorial team at Charlie Hebdo knew what they were doing, tweaking the tail of a religion whose holy book advocates violence against non-believers. Of course, in any civilised world we recognise that the death sentence is no longer the appropriate response to an insult, but Islam is ‘special’ and western liberals in the media have long argued in favour of that specialness.

For example, when an idiot Florida Christian pastor of a tiny 50-strong church decided to burn a copy of the Koran a couple of years ago, the “JeSuisCharlie” brigade in the western news media argued, almost to a person, that the pastor’s actions were “despicable…hate-speech”.

There was, it goes without saying, no defence of the pastor’s rights to his own free speech commentary on Islam.

In the New Zealand Herald, Tracey Barnett wrote:

Suddenly, every Gen-Xer with a Twitter account, every Millennial with Instagram, was telling anyone who would listen that they, too, were Charlie.

Yeah, right.

6 INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.COM Feb/Mar 2015

“You irresponsible imbecile. Not only do you have blood on your hands, you have become a symbol of moral bankruptcy in the great American cartoon.”

Ironic, those last two words.

For the record, this magazine opposed the Koran burning as well as a needless case of causing offence. Nonetheless, who had a greater right to issue such comment on the actual substance of Islam – a pastor who had at least read the Koran, understood how it advocates violence, and burned it in a form of spiritual judgement, or a bunch of cartoonists simply taking the proverbial to get a few laughs?

Why did our vacuous news media rail so strongly against a pastor’s free speech rights, yet praise so loudly a liberal, atheist cartoonist’s?

Hypocrisy? Much.

More to the point, will the news media advocates of free speech welcome this magazine’s right to report on the state of Islam currently, or will it join those who pay lip service to the principle?

At the end of the day, perhaps it doesn’t matter. If we are going to criticise Islam or any other religion, we will do it on its merits, not for comedic value.

www.epson.co.nz/precisioncore

COMMUNIQUES

Volume 11, Issue 148, ISSN 1175-1290 [Print] Chief Executive Officer Heidi Wishart Group Managing Editor Ian Wishart NZ EDITION Advertising Josephine Martin

09 373-3676 sales@investigatemagazine.com Contributing Writers: Hal Colebatch, Amy Brooke, Chris Forster, Peter Hensley, Mark Steyn, Chris Philpott, Michael Morrissey, Miranda Devine, Richard Prosser, Claire Morrow, James Morrow, Len Restall, Laura Wilson, and the worldwide resources of MCTribune Group, UPI and Newscom Art Direction Heidi Wishart Design & Layout Bozidar Jokanovic Tel: +64 9 373 3676 Fax: +64 9 373 3667 Investigate Magazine, PO Box 188, Kaukapakapa, Auckland 0843, NEW ZEALAND AUSTRALIAN EDITION Editor Ian Wishart Advertising sales@investigatemagazine.com Tel/Fax: 1-800 123 983 SUBSCRIPTIONS Online: www.investigatemagazine.com

By Phone: Australia 1-800 123 983

NZ 09 373 3676

By Post: To the PO Box NZ Edition: $85 AU Edition: A$96 Email: editorial@investigatemagazine.com, ian@investigatemagazine.com, australia@investigatemagazine.com, sales@investigatemagazine.com, helpdesk@investigatemagazine.tv All content in this magazine is copyright, and may not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher. The opinions of advertisers or contributors are not necessarily those of the magazine, and no liability is accepted.

We take no responsibility for unsolicited material sent to us. Please enclose a stamped, SAE envelope. Inquiries in the first instance should be made via email or fax.

Investigate magazine Australasia is published by HATM Magazines Ltd

COVER: NEWSCOM/MAXPPP

Your say

SATIRICAL PROFANITY In the light off the recent slayings in Paris, I doubt if any religion could have felt as justifiably incensed by satirical profanity as the Christian religion. Some years back the national museum Te Papa exhibited two compositions entitled “Piss Christ” and “Virgin in a Condom”. There was an outcry with people calling for government action.

This was not possible, even though Te Papa is a national institution, because the laws governing freedom of expression applied.

I have a strong belief that if the exhibits had been labelled “Piss Tane” and “Hei Tiki in a Condom” they would not have ‘seen the light of day.’

I doubt that this example of my ‘right to free speech’ will be published in a media pledged to preserve this right.

Bryan Johnson, Omokoroa

the prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, classified fluoride as a neurotoxin like other known neurotoxins such as lead and mercury.

An international critique3 of the PMCSA/ RSNZ report was released on the 1st of December 2014 which pointed out its many errors. This no doubt led to the correction of the report’s most obvious mistake.

Such a fundamental error highlights the fact that the Report was hurriedly drafted and little more than a piece of health establishment PR rather than an independent review of research on fluoride’s adverse health effects.

1.http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/expertadvice/commissioned-reviews/yr2014/ health-effects-of-water-fluoridation/ 2. http://www.thelancet. com/journals/laneur/article/ PIIS1474-4422%2813%2970278-3/abstract 3. http://fluoridefree.org.nz/ international-peer-review-critique/

GOVT ADMITS FLUORIDE MAKES KIDS DUMBER The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor and the Royal Society of New Zealand admitted Thursday 15th January, that a serious blunder had been made in their report “Health effects of water fluoridation: a Review of the scientific evidence”.

A new version1 is available on the Royal Society’s website where an error message now states that fluoride exposure studies found an IQ reduction of one statistical ‘standard deviation’, not one ‘IQ point’ as previously asserted.

One standard deviation equates to a drop of about seven IQ points but, unbelievably, the conclusion of the first version of the report that “this is likely to be a measurement or statistical artefact of no functional significance” has remained in the revision. Why? “This is far from insignificant” says Kane Titchener, Auckland representative of Fluoride Free New Zealand. “Any loss of IQ is a concern for both parents and society at large. Most parents have no idea that their children are receiving unmeasurably high doses of fluoride through fluoridation and other sources. For example bottle fed babies receive at least 150 times more fluoride than their breast fed counterparts.”

Last year, an article2 by world renowned neurodevelopmental toxicologists Philippe Grandjean and Philip Landrigan published in

8 INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.COM Feb/Mar 2015

Mary Byrne National coordinator Fluoride Free New Zealand www.fluoridefree.org.nz

TOTALITARIA COMING Congratulations on your book Totalitaria, which I have just finished reading, and I found it fascinating. A lot of what you wrote I did know and have known for years but regarding the UN you certainly helped me join up the dots – and it isn’t a pretty picture.

The UN I have thought for years is an evil and corrupt organization and I did not dance for joy when NZ won a place on the Security Council, big deal. I will watch with interest now how we vote when it comes to the Middle East for so far especially when Labour were in power we were pro Palestinian but what else would you expect from Helen Clarke and Co. Wouldn’t surprise me one bit if she is the next head of the UN she would fit in beautifully and God help us all then.

Maureen Murray, Tauranga

QUALITY OF LIFE During the past year, I have lost to malignancy a colleague, a brother and a brother-in-law. In none of these cases (continents apart) was the patient informed what the suggested

treatment could achieve in terms of quality of life. There was always the issue of possible prolongation of life, but not what kind of life.

Informed consent, such as before an elective surgical procedure, is simply not there.

When I asked my brother (a professional engineer) how he felt under treatment, his answer was ‘ghastly – since the start of treatment’. I asked what his expectations of treatment were. ‘I am leaving it to the experts’, he responded. As a medical professional myself, I found that strange; but then he was already under the influence of his treatment.

This finding is a universal and comprises a serious flaw in the process of informed consent. In fact, it borders on the criminal.

Legally, consent is a process, not an event; this at least implies that a patient may dis-

England for ever the entire Sovereignty of the country”. These simple words were translated into Maori by Henry Williams, a Maori speaker, if not scholar, whom the Maoris trusted. (But the settlers didn’t!

The cession of sovereignty, which the Treaty enabled, is the very foundation of our rights and of our very existence as a modern, democratic nation (as opposed to the undemocratic, racist and feudal option that would ensue if the Waitangi Tribunal’s recommendation should be accepted by this feckless government). Article One of the Treaty (the cession of sovereignty) has been accepted by historians, politicians, judges and even Maori themselves for at least seven generations and this nonsensical and false declaration by the Tribunal to the contrary should be seen for the crude, self-interested

cuss his/her progress (or lack of it) at any stage and have the right to withdraw from treatment at any stage.

F du Toit , via email

and nation-destroying fraud that it is.

Even more alarming is the refusal of the appeasing and unpatriotic National government to nip it in the bud by a declaration exposing this lie and upholding the sovereignty of our 175 year old nation.

Thousands of soldiers have died on the battlefield – in the Maori Wars and the two world wars – to uphold the sovereignty of New Zealand and, by failing to condemn this attack on our nation with the urgency and thoroughness that it deserves, John Key has shown yet again that he is seriously lacking in both patriotism and an understanding of our constitutional arrangements.

By attacking our sovereignty, our legal system and our long held rights in this deceitful manner, the Waitangi Tribunal and its ragtag bunch of members have shown that they are the enemy of every New Zealander except, of course, the tribal elite, of which so many of the Tribunal’s members are fully paid up subscribers.

New Zealand is sliding down a slippery slope towards racism and apartheid and this lie of the Waitangi Tribunal is such a serious step on that downward path that it is incumbent on every New Zealander who cares for the future of this country to understand what it means and then tell as many people as possible of the dangers that we are facing.

Neither National nor Labour can be trusted on this issue and we have three years to spread the word of what is really happening to as many of our friends, relations, work colleagues, neighbours, team mates, etc, that we can. This is a war – a war for our rights, our sovereignty, our flag, our democracy – indeed for the very soul of our

WAITANGI’S BIG LIE The powers of the Waitangi Tribunal were massively, unnecessarily and unpatriotically extended by the Lange/Palmer government for no other reason than to try to buy the votes of Maori at the following election. The ensuing monster that became the toy of a series of radical Maori members of the Tribunal and their liberal white lackeys is now a threat not only to our economy (the higher taxes we all have to pay to fund the neverending and ever more expensive “Treaty settlements”) but also to our rights to formerly public areas and now even to our very sovereignty as a nation.

In November this racist, unelected, and deeply compromised Tribunal issued Stage One of its enquiry into Ngapuhi’s (Northland tribe) Treaty claim, declaring that the chiefs did NOT cede sovereignty to the Crown when they signed the treaty in February, 1840.

This is a lie. A very deliberate lie and a selfinterested lie from a Tribunal that seems to see its sole function as extracting as much as possible off the ordinary New Zealander in terms of tax dollars, public resources (e.g. the loss of the Urewera National Park to Tuhoe) and, by its new ruling, even sovereignty itself.

The Treaty of Waitangi was a very simple document and the chiefs of Northland who signed it understood its terms very well.

By Article One they “cede to the Queen of

country. Truth must prevail over the lies of the media, of the government and of the Waitangi Tribunal. Our hard won democracy must prevail over the racism and feudalism to which the tribunal is trying to revert us.

A useful first step would be the abolition of this Tribunal which is steadily wrecking all that we and our ancestors have built in this country.

We must nail this lie as, with none of the mainstream media exposing it, it is starting to get legs, with Grren M.P., Catherine Delahunty, on the last day of parliament in 2014, screaming in the parliamentary chamber at the Prime Minister: “Why will not John Key accept what every high school student knows – that the chiefs did not cede sovereignty at Waitangi in 1840? “ That shows how far the indoctrination of the young has gone.

For further reading on Article One of the Treaty see The Great Divide, by Ian Wishart (pages 164-194), and When Two Cultures Meet, Dr. John Robinson, Pages 101-7 John McLean (abridged), Wellington

POETRY Refrain I’ve been waiting for the day When the wind is at your back When the path you put your feet on Is for once the beaten track When you stop beside the river Knowing that to rest is not to yield And smiling under a summer sun Lay down your sword and shield.

Gwyn Ryan

Feb/Mar 2015 INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.COM 9

STEYNPOST

By Mark Steyn

Hollande daze

T

he French authorities killed three murderous savages. That was the only good news on a day in which a third hostage siege began in Montpellier. The bad news started at the top, with President Hollande’s statement after the Charlie Hebdo slaughter and the Kosher grocery siege: Those who committed these acts have nothing to do with the Muslim religion.

Yeah, right. I would use my standard line on these occasions – “Allahu Akbar” is Arabic for “Nothing to see here” – but it’s not quite as funny when the streets are full of cowards, phonies and opportunists waving candles and pencils and chanting “Je suis Charlie.” Because if you really were Charlie, if you really were one of the 17 Frenchmen and women slaugh-

tered in the name of Allah in little more than 48 hours, you’d utterly despise a man who could stand up in public and utter those words.

The louder the perpetrators yell “Allahu Akbar” and rejoice that the Prophet has been avenged, the louder M Hollande and David Cameron and Barack Obama and John Kerry and the other A-list infidels insist there’s no Islam to see here.

M le Président seems to believe he can champion France’s commitment to freedom of expression by conscripting the entire nation in his monstrous lie.

Is he just pandering? There are, supposedly, six million Muslims in France, and he got 93 per cent of their vote last time round. Or is he afraid of the forces that might be unleashed if the Official Lie were

10 INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.COM Feb/Mar 2015

not wholeheartedly upheld? Stéphane Charbonnier said he’d rather die standing than live on his knees; M Hollande thinks he can get by with a furtive crouch.

The polite explanation can be found in Barbara Amiel’s column in Maclean’s, which is titled “Islamists Won’t Kill Free Speech – We Will”. She covers some of my battles with the “human rights” regime in Canada, and adds a sad postscript to it. But, apropos the French President, I was struck by this passage in particular: Terror can backfire in the sense that some people finally dislike being scared and react by doing whatever terror is discouraging. This is generally a temporary response. As George Jonas pointed out in a 2013 column, human

beings find a way of rationalizing their behaviour so that they can claim they are refraining from publishing or saying something not out of fear but because they don’t wish to offend. They convert the base notion of being scared into a noble weapon of seeing someone else’s point of view. In fact, this is one of the most insidious aspects of terrorism: we wash our brains and convert our fear into understanding.

That’s what The New York Times and The Globe & Mail et al are doing when they explain that they won’t show the Charlie Hebdo cartoons out of sensitivity to their Muslim readers, all three of them.

They’ve persuaded themselves that they’re not acting out of fear, no, sir, but instead that they’re better people for being able to sympathize with all those poor Muslims reeling under a vicious “backlash” that never comes.

But I don’t think that accounts for M Hollande, who must surely know better.

As Evan Solomon and I argued on the CBC this month, France’s Muslim population is between eight per cent (says Evan) and ten per cent (say I). But the Muslim share of France’s prison population is 60 per cent. That’s about 42,000 people. Among their number was one of the Charlie Hebdo murderers, who was trained to a sufficient level to be able to pull off a terror attack far more complex and sophisticated than the Sydney coffee shop siege or the Ottawa Cenotaph killing. How few of those 42,000 would need to be willing to sign up for a month at Camp Jihad before France would descend into chaos?

The kosher grocery siege was also relatively sophisticated, not least in its coordination and in the duplicitousness of the hostage-takers. After issuing the conditions necessary to prevent them killing hostages, they killed four of them anyway. Because they’re Jews, so why would you forgo that pleasure?

When the death toll emerged, my initial thought was that, if it weren’t for the dozen dead on Wednesday, this would be the major news event of the week. But then I remembered: They’re Jews. And as I wrote in America Alone: Four years after 9/11, it turned out there really is an explosive “Arab street”, but it’s in Clichy-sous-Bois.

Since the beginning of this century, French Arabs have been carrying on a low-level intifada against synagogues, kosher butchers, Jewish schools, etc.

The concern of the political class has been to prevent the spread of these attacks to targets of more, ah, general interest. They’re losing that battle...

If Chirac, de Villepin and co aren’t exactly Charles Martel, the rioters aren’t doing a bad impression of the Muslim armies of 13 centuries ago: They’re seizing their opportunities, testing their foe, probing his weak spots. If burning the ‘burbs gets you more “respect”, they’ll burn ‘em again, and again. In defiance of traditional immigration patterns, these young men are less assimilated than their grandparents. And why should they be?

On present demographic trends, it will be for ethnic Europeans to assimilate with them.

They tested the foe again this month: They assassinated the senior editorial team of the only publication not willing to sign on to the official “No Islam to see here” line. And they were rewarded for their slaughter with the président de la république standing up in public insisting there’s “No Islam to see here”.

Almost three-quarters of a century ago, after the Germans took the French capital, Kern & Hammerstein wrote a valentine to the City of Lights: The Last Time I Saw Paris Her heart was warm and gay No matter how they change her I’ll remember her that way.

I never much cared for the song in a World War Two context: After all, what changes? An occupying army marches in, you defeat them, they march out ...and Paris is Paris again. But Paris – and Picardy, and France – have been profoundly changed, and likely permanently. The French capital is a city of no-go zones, and Jews hunched in a freezer to avoid death, and a government gibbering the Official Lies no matter how ridiculous they sound. And there’s no easy way to get this occupation force to march out. Like Kern & Hammerstein, those of us who loved the city can only hold her in memory: No matter how they change her I’ll remember her that way. © 2014 Mark Steyn

After issuing the conditions necessary to prevent them killing hostages, they killed four of them anyway. Because they’re Jews, so why would you forgo that pleasure?

Feb/Mar 2015 INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.COM 11

RIGHT & WRONG

By David Garrett

One law for them, another law for us

F

or 20 years prior to his death in 2007, James Takamore lived in Christchurch with his pakeha partner Denise Clarke and their children. Mr Takamore – who was born in the Bay of Plenty – was Tuhoe by birth and ancestry. What has happened since his death is essentially a struggle between Maori family members – who don’t care what the deceased’s wishes were – and the legal system. A legal system which governs us all, and which we are all expected to obey.

From the time he began a relationship with Ms. Clarke, James chose to have little to do with his iwi. After Mr Takamore’s death, his body was removed from a community centre in Christchurch,rapidly transported to the tribal land of his ancestors, and buried. Despite being the executor of his will, Denise Clarke has been fighting to regain his body for burial in Christchurch ever since.

Ms Clarke has now doggedly pursued her fight for almost seven years. She went first to the High Court, which affirmed her rights as executor to bury her partner where she saw fit, and granted her an injunction allowing her to regain possession of James’s body. By the time she had obtained her injunction however, James had been buried by his whanau.

Since the beginning of Ms Clarke’s sad quest, people have asked “what would happen if the family members were pakeha and not Maori?” In my view there is little doubt that the wishes of pakeha family members would be, if not disregarded, certainly overridden. If any pakeha did

what the Takamore whanau and hangers on did, and obstructed an executor bearing a High Court ruling in their favour, they would be promptly arrested.

As with much else in modern day New Zealand, it seems to have become accepted that Maori are “special”, and not always subject to the rule of law that governs the rest of us. Speaking of a recent case where an unauthorized full autopsy was carried out at Auckland hospital mortuary, a DHB spokesmen said “The team does its best to respect family sensitivities and wishes, in particular those of Maori, who find the prospect of autopsy tough. [emphasis added].

Such an attitude is a disgrace, and an insult to New Zealanders from other cultural backgrounds. I am the father of two very much loved children. If – heaven forbid – one of them was to die in circumstances which required an autopsy, I would find the prospect very much worse

12 INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.COM Feb/Mar 2015

than “tough”. Thanks to the plethora of shows such as CSI, we all now know the brutal reality of a standard “three cavity” autopsy.

The lesson from the cases seems to be if the family is Maori, their wishes will be given considerable weight, if not always given effect to, whereas if they are pakeha, their wishes will be of little account.

But back to James Takamore.

Following her failed first attempt to regain control of James’s body, Ms Clarke did not immediately appeal, but attempted to mediate with the whanau under the auspices of a Tuhoekaumatua.

The mediation failed to reach an acceptable resolution.

Ms Clarke then found herself in the Court of Appeal, defending an appeal brought by members of Mr Takamore’s whanau against the original High Court decision. The Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the High Court, viz. that

The lesson from the cases seems to be if the family is Maori, their wishes will be given considerable weight, if not always given effect to, whereas if they are pakeha, their wishes will be of little account

Ms Clarke, as executor of James’s will, had the legal right to his body. Cue further discussions with Mr Takamore’s whanau, and further legal processes, culminating in a decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the highest Court in the land.

The Judges of the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the appeal by the whanau, finding that: 1) Under an ancient rule of law extending to at least Victorian times, the executor of a person’s Will had the duty – and the right – to bury the deceased’s body; and 2) that if the actions of an executor in this regard were “unreasonable”, those decisions could be reviewed by the High Court; and 3) Ms Takamore rights to decide where to bury her partner’s body were reaffirmed.

So far so good.

The case then went back to the High Court for orders to be made. In a Court Minute of 8 May 2014 Justice Fogarty adopted a bullish tone, saying: “…the High Court does not intend, and ultimately will not allow, the decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand to be flouted…the Police will continue in their overall responsibility of keeping the peace in the area…The Police will retain their usual discretion and powers to act to prevent breaches of the law, particularly breaches of the peace.”

His Honour continued: “I am giving the defendants [named members of the Takamore family] one calendar month from today to…cooperate with the exhumation and have a dignified role in that process.”

In a most commendable display of sensitivity and reasonableness, Ms Clarke then authorized her lawyer to enter into further discussions with the whanau, and the Marae Committee who control the burial ground where MrTakamore is currently buried. There were discussions between the High Court Sheriff – who is tasked with ensuring Court orders are carried out – the marae chairman, and the local Police commander. The result of those discussions was, it appeared, that the whanau became resigned to the inevitability of Mr Takamore’s exhumation in accordance with the Court Orders, and indicated that they would no longer oppose it.

At 5 am on 8 August 2014, James Takamore’s son, together with an undertaker and others, arrived at the burial ground

to exhume Mr Takamore’s body. Believing what they had been told, they did not expect opposition. Nevertheless a number of Police were present in case of any threatened breaches of the peace.

Ms Clarke’s trust in the good faith of family members was sadly misplaced. At the urupa the exhumation party was met with 30-40 members of Mr Takamore’s iwi, including two of the defendants in the High Court case. They indicated that if an attempt was made to enter the urupa, they would physically prevent it.

In my view, Ms Clarke had every right to expect the Police to prevent breaches of the peace by whanau members, and to have the Police facilitate the carrying out of Orders and Rulings of the Court. It appears that threats including the possible use of firearms were made, although no firearms were presented.

Against a background of hostility and threats of violence, the Police advised the undertakers that their safety could not be guaranteed. Unsurprisingly, the undertakers then withdrew.

There is no doubt in my mind that if the family members and others present that day were pakeha, an executor in possession of Court Rulings in her favour – including one from the highest court in the land – would have had the full co-operation of the Police, who wouldhave taken whatever steps were necessary to ensure the undertakers’ safety. Anyone issuing threats or obstructing the exhumation party would promptly have

been arrested. As it is, James Takamore remains where he is – hundreds of miles from his partner and children.

Enquiries reveal that the matter has now been referred to the office of the Solicitor General for “advice on how to move forward”. In my view the answer to that is glaringly obvious: instruct the Police to do their duty; to protect MsClarke and her agents from anyone who attempts to prevent her exercising her rights – rights affirmed by the highest court in the land.

The status quo now is an utter disgrace.

A group of lawless thugs who happen to be Maori have been allowed to cock a snook at rulings of all three of our highest courts, including the highest of them all. A total of nine Judges in the highest courts in the land have upheld her rights. All to no avail. That outrageous disregard of the rule of law cannot be allowed to continue.

The Treaty of Waitangi is cited ad nauseum by Maori claiming various benefits under it. What is conveniently often ignored is Article Three, which made Maori subjects of the British Crown, with all the rights and duties that such citizenship entailed. Surely the most fundamental of those duties is to be subject to, and to comply with, orders of our courts.

In the sad case of James Takamore that is not happening. Ms Clarke continues her dogged battle to have her partner’s body returned to her and her children for burial where Mr Takamore himself wished to be laid to rest.

Feb/Mar 2015 INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.COM 13