In a glossy and very expensively produced CD handout called "Step into a WORLD where a NATION was BORN", there is layer after layer of very distorted history and many bare faced lies that are obvious to any informed New Zealand historian. One very important lie relates to the grievance-industry's relentless promotion of the false (Official) English text of the treaty (there isn't one actually...there's only the final English draft and the so-called "Official" English text, pushed by the grievance-industry, isn't it). Let's go through the CD and comment on just a few of the lies told therein:

'Crown officials believed the Maori text had exactly the same meaning as the English text, but this was not the case. At the time Henry Williams himself didn't think it was possible to have an exact translation, which he noted on the treaty copy that was sent to Governor Gipps in Sydney. He said it was the best translation he could make, given what the languages would allow'.

As confusing as this dialogue will sound to the discerning analyst, what the grievance-industry is referring to in this instance is something that it calls "The Certified Treaty of Waitangi", which is a just another title or name that they give to their "Official" English language text.

Accompanying the CD commentary are some pictures:

This funky picture depicts Governor Sir George Gipps receiving a copy of the "English" treaty a few weeks after the only true treaty (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) was signed on February 6th 1840. Supposedly, according to the CD narrator, in conjunction with traditional statements by grievance-industry historians, Reverend Henry Williams himself had written a certification stating that the "Official" English text 'was the best translation he could make, given what the languages would allow'.

The CD then jumps to another picture to show this"Official" English text.

The backdrop English treaty text shown in this picture is what Treaty 2U and their grievance-industry handlers hope you'll think is the text that Reverend Henry Williams used to create the Maori text (Te Tiriti o Waitangi). Confusion reigns supreme, in that the grievance industry calls this English wording "The Certified Treaty of Waitangi" and says that Reverend Henry Williams, in the despatch to Governor Gipps leaving the Bay of Islands aboard the "Martha"on the 21st of February 1840, stated the following:

‘I certify that the above is as Literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi as the idiom of the Language will admit of’.

So, just how many big fat porkies is Treaty 2U telling in this instance?

  1. Reverend Henry Williams never made an English text, as his solitary role was to act as the official translator for Hobson's Treaty of Waitangi proposal. All Williams did was take the final English draft, produced on the 4th of February 1840 by others, and translate that into the Maori language. The final English DRAFT was the "mother" document and the Maori language text derived therefrom was the TRANSLATION.

  2. Reverend Henry Williams is being deliberately misquoted, as he never stated that he 'didn't think it was possible to have an exact translation'. This is pure bunkum.

  3. Reverend Henry Williams never wrote or stated: ‘I certify that the above is as Literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi as the idiom of the Language will admit of’. This was written by James Stuart Freeman in a "business section" at the end of one of Freeman's "Formal Royal Style" English treaty composites. It is preceded by two items of recent business that have nothing to do with Freeman's "Formal Royal Style" text. The purpose of the statement, penned and created by Freeman (Hobson's secretary), was to provide a space for Reverend Henry Williams to certify the accuracy of his Maori language TRANSLATION.

  4. In the same enclosure (wad of papers included in that despatch leaving the Bay of Islands on the 21st of February 1840) were THREE printed Maori language copies of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Researchers can view these originals at the New Zealand National Archives in Vol. G/30, pp. 28, 79 & 80. One can also view a hand-written Maori language copy by Reverend Henry Williams, sent to Sir George Gipps on the 8th of February 1840. It is also a "Certified Copy" of his TRANSLATION (see: Vol. G/30, pp. 25-27). Reverend Henry Williams signed Freeman's statement of certification and, thereby, guaranteed that his translation was very good and a true representation of the "final English draft" that he had received from Hobson.

  5. We can now see that Reverend Henry Williams did a superb job of translation.

  6. Every treaty historian worth their salt knows full well that the "final English draft" was lost sometime in February 1840. This is a much stated fact. So, why does Treaty 2U persist in trying to convince us that a "Formal Royal Style" text (which has always been available), based upon rough draft notes that terminated on the 3rd of February 1840, somehow qualifies as the final draft text of the 4th of February 1840 and used by Reverend Williams to translate Te Tiriti o Waitangi? This is a very deliberate and fraudulent misattribution. The true final English draft was found again in 1989 and it is now known that an additional three, all dating to February - April 1840 sit in overseas archives. All of the linked and spliced together text in the "composite" Formal Royal Style copies can be found in the "obsolete" rough draft notes, created between January 30th or 31st 1840 until February 3rd 1840. None of it comes from the final English draft of February 4th 1840.


In a section of the CD devoted to "Whalers" and the whaling industry of around 1830, it is stated that there were an estimated 300 Europeans in New Zealand. The CD goes to great lengths to portray them as a debauched and unruly crowd of drunken, pugilistic disease ridden revellers, constantly on the hunt for gratification in terms of women and alcohol. The true historical circumstances are well known, but deliberately distorted by the Treaty 2U writers of propaganda history. Here's an example:

Throughout the Treaty 2U exhibit, every effort is made to promote Maori as noble and even regal and Europeans as conniving, debauched or pathetic. When a problematic aspect needs to be dealt with, like Hongi Hika's, Titore's, Pomare's, etc., lucrative prostitution rings and shady business enterprises, some clever role-swapping needs to be done. Woe betide the propaganda merchants of Treaty 2U to show Maori women plying the trade as Hongi Hika's prostitutes... that simply would not do.

Hey, but here's an idea. Why not blame all the drunken revelry on Europeans and even cast blue eyed European blondes in the role of the (circa 1830) prostitutes instead? Manning stated that, prior to 1840, there were only about two European women in the Bay of Islands area who were not the wives or daughters of missionaries and they were married to settlers. The rest of the settlers had Maori wives. The fact is that Hongi Hika created, fostered, tolerated, perpetuated, protected and encouraged the hellhole, sailor-enticing and fleecing, R&R environment of Kororareka, so that he could acquire muskets and other much wanted goods. Here's a quote:

'As well as trading in the staple products of potatos, pork, and timber, Pomare II became a major dealer in spirits as well as profiting from gambling and the sexual services of slave women. In 1840 he ventured into tourism by charging members of Commander Wilkes' United States Exploring Expedition one shilling each to view a 'war dance' and a sexually explicit performance by the women' (See Chiefs of Industry, by Hazel Petrie, pg. 42).

The above Treaty 2U collage image even goes so far as to introduce fairly standard homosexual symbolism and connotations, using the oiled, muscular sailor's arm and cap as suggestive and recognisable "gay-props". The oiled arm seems to represent a deviant homosexual act or practice called "fisting". The foreground depiction of a baby-faced, blue-eyed "cabin-boy" look-a-like, wearing a paper sailor's hat, and involved in fisticuffs with a gay-looking pirate seems symbolically suggestive of homosexual pedophile predation. The downwards pointing, turquoise or sky-blue triangle that forms the top of the "cocktail" glass in the above picture is well-known gay symbolism. The triangle denotes homosexual orientation and the turquoise colour, within the eight stripe Gay flag, represents "art" (see 1978 San Francisco Gay community flag).

Similar symbolism (downwards pointing triangle) worn as an antenna on one of the teletubby characters (Tinky-Winky) has been the subject of ongoing controversial speculation about subliminal gay-promotion since CNN first raised the issue in December 1997. The name Tinky-Winky is, possibly, an extension or derivative of the gay-term "Twink", which describes a particular physical-type of young gay-male.

In viewing various areas of this Treaty 2U CD, which specifically targets young people of school age, one wonders if the artists were more than just a little bit twisted and built a few of their deviant fantasies or an underlying message of recruitment, into the display.

At the very least, the deliberate distortion of history in this CD, to unfairly denigrate Europeans, needs to be the subject of an investigation by the Race Relations Conciliator. The mission of Treaty 2U is to get impressionable youth believing this profoundly erroneous history, which sets out to sanitise Maori involvement, while heaping all manner of blame and historically unsustainable accusations onto the colonists or transient visitors. Whatever else is subliminally or symbolically built into the CD should be investigated by a psychiatrist or psychologist. Several areas of the collage image are suspect, suggesting phallic and gay-bar symbolism. It would appear that the State Services Commission has accorded a little bit too much unrestrained "artistic license" to the design team.


In the Treaty 2-con-U exhibit there is no vivid description of just how dangerous New Zealand was, as a place for Maori to live, before British colonisation in 1840. There is no adequate emphasis on how Maori, in intertribal fighting (the Musket Wars), had killed, maimed or enslaved over 60,000 of their own people in the space of about twenty-three years preceding 1840. There is no mention of how the British Monarchs or Parliamentarians were, over a period of about thirty years, petitioned by many chiefs, missionaries and settlers alike to intercede and govern the country as, first-off, a British Protectorate and later as a fully fledged British Colony like Australia. There is no mention of the fact that the British never wished to set up a colonial government in New Zealand and always opposed the move until forced, by several sets of regional circumstances, to do so. It was only after 1837 that they began, very reluctantly, to consider the proposition as a depressing but inescapable responsibility and discuss the matter seriously. Treaty 2U attempts to paint a Walt Disney-like fantasy that the formerly tranquil and utopian lifestyle of Maori was ruined by British colonisation.

There is also no mention of the rampant cannibalism, of which very vivid descriptions exist in the accounts of colonial witnesses including missionaries or in the oral traditions of Maori. Very often, Maori protesters will bare their buttocks or "moon" people like the visiting queen or other dignitaries. This act, which has its roots in cannibalism, is considered to be a paramount or ultimate form of insult. It stems from an age when captives, destined for cannibal consumption, were kept in cages. Periodically, one or two individuals would be dragged out, killed, cooked and eaten, often in full view of the captives. Later, the satiated feasters would dance with their bare buttocks facing towards those still in the cage and defecate in front of them. The insult was, 'You are nothing... we can eat you and sh..t you out'.

Incidental, at one of the Treaty 2U exhibits of 2006 at Tauranga, a switched on gentleman, very conversant with true NZ history, had a very intense, disparaging discussion about the appalling content of the display with Archivist Graham Langton. Later the gentleman drove off towards his home, but stopped at the lights at the intersection of Chapel and Takitimu Rd's. A car, with Treaty 2U emblazoned along the side, pulled up to his right and the Maori girls in the car, front seat and back, rose up, turned and pointed their buttocks out the windows at the gentleman in a gesture of insult. Obviously, they weren't impressed by his earlier, fairly loud public comments about the propaganda content of their display. Our protest team, standing at our display, has been "bummed" by them in similar manner.


Another panel was titled. A Maori World. It went on to say: 'First People - Polynesian people stepped onto these shores some 800 - 1000 years ago. Over the following centuries, this country was a place of independent tribal groups who looked after their own territories and lived close to the land, physically and spiritually.' Unfortunately, the panel omitted to mention a well-known and much expounded truth that every learned Maori, whether tohunga, kaumatua, elder, kuia or student of Maori folklore and oral tradition knows implicitly: that Polynesian-Melanesian Maori were not the "first people" to occupy these shores and were, in fact, very latecomers. Many groups, falling under the names of Tangata Whenua (Lords of the Soil) or Patu-paiarehe, etc., so-named by the newly arrived Polynesian-Melanesian Maori, were already very well established in the country and had been so for several thousand years. Pockets of these uru-kehu (light or reddish tinged hair) and kiri-puwhero (light complexion or reddish skin toned people) survived into the twentieth century and many Maori are related by bloodlines to the captured and enslaved "Turehu". This is where the terms, "waka blondes" or "pakeha Maori" originally came from. An early letter, written to relatives in England by a British settler in New Zealand in the 1820's, talks about the distribution of people in New Zealand. He mentioned that the Maori tribes and the very few settlers in the country were occupying the coastal regions and went on to write that the only people living inland were the "pakeha Maoris" (groups like the white Ngati-Hotu tribes from inland Hawkes Bay, Taupo and Rotorua). The earlier people were hunted to extinction by the Maori cannibals, with the men and boys or elderly being eaten and the women and girls "absorbed" as slaves into the Maori tribes. Some estimates state that general "slavery" under Maori tribalism affected up to ten percent of the population before British colonisation. This PC section of Treaty 2U is ridiculous... ask any learned Maori elder!

This is probably one of the sections that Dr. Claudia Orange "checked for historical accuracy and reworked for general audiences"???

It's time our schoolchildren were taught proper, "warts and all" long-term New Zealand history rather than limited and politically santitised, short-term history, which excludes any mention or study devoted to the much older core populations. The fact is that virtually everything we see in Maoridom, by way of cultural symbolism or artefacts (carved greenstone treasures, etc.), was derived by conquest from the earlier people. These days, it would represent career-suicide for our mainstream historians or archaeologists to make any mention of these pre-Maori people, even though oral or recorded histories are replete with references to them, or their ancient landmarking structures that still copiously litter our landscape. Remote burial caves still contain their skeletons, bearing unique, identifiable physiology that the worldwide community of physical anthropologists can study. Very often, greenstone treasures or other "Maori-looking" artefacts lie adjacent, even though these people were laid to rest long before the epoch of the Polynesian-Melanesian Maori. Once found, these remains are immediately whisked away by iwi representatives and hidden or destroyed. No forensic testing of such unwanted, anomalous skeletal remains is permitted in New Zealand, without iwi permission. Maori conquered these ancient people in life and now own them in death, even though some of these remains are many thousands of years old.


A very dorky looking twerp represents the conniving missionary, enticing the dignified young Maori into a new course or direction that would surely disadvantage him on the long term, while enriching the church. There appears to be leering homosexual innuendo within this picture also and a subliminal attempt to leave the impression that the quirky "frocked" missionaries were a bunch of queers predating upon young, bare-chested Maori men.

Who is writing and creating this stuff for Treaty 2U? This is probably another section that Dr. Claudia Orange "checked for historical accuracy and reworked for general audiences"???...hmmm...

In a panel titled: Missionary Impact it stated:

'A Matter of Faith - From 1814, Christian missionaries from Britain began building up friendly relationships with Maori. Mutual trust grew, and eventually this helped the British government gain influence here'.

Again, the language is carefully crafted to leave the impression that the missionaries were being used as an "avant-garde" regiment or "fifth column" infiltration unit by the ever conniving British government. This lends credence to recent political ploys and slanderous tactics to label the early New Zealand missionaries as, "British spies". Let's explore some of the deceptive content of this panel:

The 2006 panel used this picture to show interaction between Maori and the earliest missionaries and one would assume that the background countryside represents some location in Northern New Zealand. The backdrop is, in fact, England, as this is a painting from 1820 of chief Waikato (left) and Hongi Hika (middle) standing adjacent to missionary Thomas Kendall (seated right) during chief Hongi Hika's visit to England.

The real story is more along these lines: Chief Hongi Hika of Ngapuhi had some serious "utu" (revenge) that he wished to deal out to Ngati-whatua and others since the battle of Moremonui at Maunganui Bluff in 1807. For this he needed a supply of muskets and other weaponry that would give him a military advantage. He therefore gained passage for himself aboard the ship Active and sailed to Sydney, N.S.W. Australia in 1814. There he encouraged missionary Samuel Marsden to set up a Church Missionary Society mission station at the Bay of Islands, New Zealand, which would be under Hongi Hika's vigilant protection. Marsden accepted the offer.

'The mission was set up in the same year, under Hongi's protection, and as a result ships came in increasing numbers. In this way the missionaries served Hongi's purposes. Hongi protected missionaries and seamen alike against his own people. He knew that a reputation for peace and security would draw Europeans into his sphere of influence and increase his opportunities to trade food and supplies for European technology, including tools and weapons. Other mission stations were established under his protection at Kerikeri and Waimate North' (see Dictionary of New Zealand Biography).

By 1818 Hongi had accumulated enough weapons, from visiting ships, that he could wage war in the south and take many captives as slaves. He persisted in the accumulation of weapons, and, upon his return through Australia from England in 1820, was able to exchange the King's gifts for an additional 300 muskets. Weapons came via the sailing ships and the missionaries did all that they could to stop the traffic in arms. They also refused to participate in the repair of muskets. From these beginnings, Hongi initiated the terrible "Musket Wars", which caused intertribal carnage throughout the country and decimated the Maori population of New Zealand in the space of about twenty years.

So, in essence, the missionaries were enticed to come to New Zealand under false pretences. They thought they were on a mission for God, but, in Hongi's view, were actually little more than bait to encourage visits by foreign traders who could supply much sought after weapons. For quarter of a century before 1840 the missionaries made outstanding progress in bringing literacy to Maori through the establishment of mission schools, coupled with the constant production of books, in the Maori language, being stamped out on the C.M.S. mission press. These books were not all religious literature and many were primers or alphabet & grammar tutorials, etc. Hongi Hika himself had been the major contributor to Kendall and Lee's, Grammar And Vocabulary, 1820, and by 1840 many Maori, including Hone Heke, were fluent bilingual speakers or readers.

The exhibit panel at least gives Samuel Marsden's CMS mission credit for offering Maori agricultural training "in new ways of gardening and farming" for a quarter of a century before 1840. It also mentions how. "The missionaries encouraged peace and sometimes sailed with waka taua (war canoes) mediate between warring tribes."

Far from the missionaries being, "British spies", their track record shows them to have been more like caring, nursing mothers and fathers to Maori. To demonstrate how ridiculous the modern-day accusations have now become, Reverend John Whiteley of Kawhia Wesleyan mission station (circa 1840) is now labelled as a "British spy", by Taranaki activists, so-as to justify the removal of his memorial from the "White Cliff's" region of Northern Taranaki. Whiteley worked long and hard to negotiate the release of the Taranaki slaves, who had been conquered by Te Wherowhero of Waikato. He was successful in negotiating a ransom settlement and, thereby, saved the lives of many Maori who could, otherwise, have ended up in the cannibal hangi pits of Waikato. For this activity, Whiteley paid with his life, as he was later murdered by a marauding band or war party at White Cliffs and the modest memorial was later erected in his honour at Pukearuhe Reserve (1923). Some modern-day activists and claimants amongst the Maori progeny of those he saved from being worked, eaten or beaten to death, now call Reverend John Whiteley a British spy. I guess some moral cowards are capable of saying anything if they think there's a "buck" in it for themselves, even to the extent of slandering the saviour of their family tree. To see a newspaper article on this, CLICK HERE


For the grievance-industry to survive and continue to conduct "business as usual", it is imperative that the people of New Zealand believe that there are TWO treaty texts, one in the Maori language and one in English.

If one consults the Maori text of Te tiriti o Waitangi, then there is an absolute guarantee of equality for all the people of New Zealand. Nothing in the Maori language text suggests any exclusive rights for one New Zealander over another and all have access to the same lawful rights, benefits and obligations.

If one consults the, so-called, "Official" English text, however, there appears to be no strong or outward mention of any British or settler rights and there is only clear mention of rights for Maori. Because of this serious omission, the grievance-industy loves this text and is founded or built upon it. By forcing this strange, contradictory and defective text into legislation, an atmosphere of exploitative "reinterpretation" was created to benefit Maori and big business and Geoffrey Palmer's "Five Principles" were later concocted to aid the grievance industry in that dubious process.

Unfortunately for Treaty 2U staff, the why's, wherefore's and very existence of this "Official" English treaty text has to be raised in the subject matter of the exhibit and glossed over in a masterly fashion that will not alert the public to the underlying scam. Here's how they do it:

In a video showing the journey of the various treaty documents, a solitary "English" language one is seen to have been sent by the government from the Bay of Islands for signing at Manukau and Waikato Heads. This claim is not true or historically sustainable, as the Government in the Bay of Islands sent only a Maori language document for use at Manukau and Port Waikato, which did not arrive in time for Reverend Robert Maunsell's meeting at Port Waikato on April 11th 1840. The Maori language document, which was the ONLY one issued by the government for presentation to the chiefs at Port Waikato, is now known as the Kawhia Treaty. It was used at two treaty meetings at Manukau in late March and early April and, later sent by messenger to Kawhia for use by Reverend John Whiteley. After sending the government issued document onward to Kawhia, William Cornwallis Symonds returned to Manukau with Maunsell's "make-do" treaty for a third and final attempt to get signatures there.

The English language copy alluded to in the Treaty 2U statements and CD was actually sent over to Reverend Robert Maunsell by James Stuart Freeman, Hobson's Secretary. It bore a very tortured and horribly executed left hand signature by Hobson and was signed at the height of Hobson's paralytic stroke of March 1st 1840. The only destination for these "Formal Royal Style" English texts, up until that time, had been overseas. Hobson's terrible signature made it unsuitable for overseas despatch. The document was, quite obviously, sent from Tamaki on about the 4th of March 1840, just before HMS Herald returned the stricken Hobson to the Bay of Islands. Also, it wasn't an authorised Maori language text, which was the only legal wording that the chiefs were ever allowed to consider before signing.

The tortured signature that could have ended Hobson's career as Lieutenant Governor of New Zealand, if this Formal Royal Style English treaty document had been sent to Hobson's superiors overseas. The undignified signature does nothing more than show how very ill Hobson is and how he's not capable of fulfilling the most basic physical demands of office. This dismal attempt at signing a document for overseas despatch would have rendered it a reject, suitable only for the rubbish bin. James Stuart Freeman's, otherwise, beautifully written document was now ruined.

On the Treaty 2U CD it states:

'The Treaty was first signed at Waitangi on February 6th 1840. Because Hobson became very sick in early March of 1840, several copies of the treaty text were made and given to a number of traders, missionaries and officials to gather signatures around the country. Today there are nine surviving copies of the treaty. Only one of these is written in English, the Waikato copy, and no-one knows why this is. Historians think though that it was probably used alongside one of the two hundred printed copies made of the treaty in Maori, which were printed on February 17th 1840 at the Bay of Islands mission press.'

Actually, our historians KNOW that it was "used alongside one of the two hundred printed copies made of the treaty in Maori" because of several historical documents and letter accounts, including the report from William Cornwallis Symonds, enumerating the signatures he was submitting to the government.

The CD, although very evasive in its "gloss over" explanation, shows the "Printed Maori" treaty document that was used at Port Waikato for Reverend Maunsell's meeting there on 11th April 1840. It was signed by Maunsell and later picked up for the government, along with the English document, by William Cornwallis Symonds on about the 15th of April 1840. Symonds, the government appointed emissary, had failed to get Maunsell's government issued document, hand-written in the Maori language, to Port Waikato in time. Maunsell, under severe pressure, had innovated and created his own "make-do" treaty from a Maori language printed sheet for presentation (the only legal text that he was allowed to present). He also utilised the document that Freeman had sent over, but only in a very secondary role. It was used only to receive the overflow signatures that would not fit on the Printed Maori sheet. Some of the Port Waikato signatures, including Reverend Maunsell's can be seen at the bottom of the sheet in the above picture. Only five chiefs managed to sign this document before they ran out of room and the other 32 signatures "overflowed" onto the English Formal Royal Style copy that was not presented. It was acting in no other capacity other than as a repository for overflow signatures.

The Treaty 2U CD uses this picture to represent the signing ceremony at Port Waikato. It is very important to realise that there was no radical departure from the norm at Port Waikato. The chiefs there, as well as at all other centres around New Zealand including Manukau were only ever presented the Maori text of the treaty for consideration. The only problem for Maunsell and his assistant Ashwell was that the hand-written, "government issued" Maori language document, along with the government's representative (William Cornwallis Symonds) had not arrived in time for the meeting and they had been forced to innovate at the last minute. The solitary legal Maori text of the Treaty of Waitangi was set in stone as of February 6th 1840 and the fact that some signatures, over two months later, fell upon a Formal Royal Style English text that was not presented or even legal for chiefly consideration, does not change the Treaty of Waitangi into something else. This whole modern-day ruse to change the treaty with deceptive, self-serving, legalese arguments, guile and pseudo-history is nothing more or less than "control-freak" treachery. Government officials, ministers, and public servants, found to be collaborating with social-engineers to deliberately distort or remove our egalitarian founding document, should be arraigned before the courts and charged of treason against the people of New Zealand. THERE IS NO ENGLISH TREATY OF WAITANGI; THERE NEVER WAS ONE & THERE NEVER WILL BE ONE!!!

This article gives but a few examples of the massive deception and falsification of our treaty and history, being force-fed to the public, using taxpayer's money, by the Treaty 2-con-U exhibit.

The fearful statement echos and reverberates mercilessly: 'Labour promised a treaty education campaign in 1999, but dragged its heels on the issue, worried about being accused of pushing an ideological agenda'. (see article by political reporter, Ruth Berry, 20/10/2003).

Yup, Helen... your worst fears were realised... it turned out to be a real Maori activist and grievance industry, "touring pandemonium shadow show" pushing an ideological agenda.