Talk:MultiCultural Aotearoa

Sources

What's the source for the MCA being founded to give a voice to "zionists"? Which source says that the MCA was involved in the violence? The sources I read say that it was a separate group. I'm reverting the recent changes (Isee you also deleted a perfectly good reference) until these are sourced. Thanks, -Willmcw 01:57, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

On 14/08/04 a meeting was held in wellington to discuss the affects of racism in the community. From this meeting the MCA was formed. Invited to speak at the meeting was David Zwartz, pres. of the NZ Jewish Council, and a known zionist. As for the other points, the NF was initialy provoked by a seperate group, and then they left. After leaving, they came back and got trapped up against a fence, and around 200 members of the MCA walked down the hill from parliment and surrounded them. These protesters included hardcore MCA activists, members of the ISO @ seperate Anarchist groups, but all representing the MCA in their march. I'll leave your reference up, but I'll also include a TVNZ link stating that the march was only attended by around 200 mca members. -Molloy

Do you have any sources for this information? First-hand accounts are what Wikipedia calls "original research" and cannot be used. Information in the encyclopedia must come from verifiable sources. So far, we only have three sources - the MCA website, the Scoop article, and the TVNZ coverage. Those don't mention , to the best of my recollection, anything about the topics you're adressing above. -Willmcw 18:14, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Here is a source, from a Jewish website of all places, stating that the meeting was attended by Zwartz, and also mentions the NF's picket of the meeting: [1] - Molloy

We can add this material to the NZNF article, but the MCA isn't mentioned in the reference you provided. -Willmcw 21:17, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

You obviously have little knowledge concerning the MCA, as it was formed from the public meeting mentioned in the article. I suggest you do some more research on the subject before butchering this article. - Molloy

Material which does not have a verifiable source does not belong in this or any Wikipedia article. I'm not saying your information is wrong, just that it doesn not belong here without some source besides yourself. Since the confrontation with the NZNF has not been tied directly to the MCA it has little relevance here. It's already covered in detail in the NZNF article. -Willmcw 01:57, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

The protesters that surrounded the National Front numbered around 200, and consisted mainly of MCA & ISO marchers. If you view the TV footage and look at photographs of the event this will become clear to you. The seperate "Scary Fairy" group only numbered around 30, and were the minority amongst the aggressors. Since this has been the only MCA action, and it resulted in violence, I think that is a fairly large factor with which this article should be concerned. Yes, it has been mentioned in the NZNF article, but not everyone reading this article will take an interest, or even read the NZNF article. - Molloy

I looked at the video again, but it wasn't clear to me. How do you visually differentiate MCA members from Scary Fairies, etc? The NZTV coverage and the NZ Herald both depict them as separate events, on opposite sides of town. Unless you were checking membership cards, there is no way you could know that the people who attacked the (visibly pipe-wielding) NZNFers belonged to the MCA. And unless a reporter or other reliable source documented that information, it does not belong in the article. And neither does the assertion that the MCA was founded to give a voice to zionists and socialists, unless you have a source for it. -Willmcw 02:59, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I say again, the "Scary Fairies" only numbered around 40, and suddenly their numbers were boosted to 200 when the two marches MERGED. When that happened the "Scary Fairies" started marching under the MCA's banner, becoming directly affiliated with the group. As for the "socialist & zionist" comment, the MCA is activly supported by the ISO [2] and the International Socialist Tendency [3] (whom are classed as socialists), and several of the founding members of the MCA include zionists. Several marched, and can be seen in photographs of the event. Perhaps you should start viewing these photograps and doing your own research, before claiming my own is inaccurate. - Molloy

I hear you saying it, but that doesn't count. Someone from a reliable, verifiable source has to say it too. As I said above, I am not saying your information is inaccurate, simply that it is unsourced. Of the two links you provide, the ISO doesn't mention the MCA at all (at least a search doesn't turn up anything.) and the IST has a single notice announcing the one demonstration. That does nothing to back your claim that the MCA was founded to give socialists a voice - it looks like they had a voice already. You may recognize the above-named individuals on the video footage of the people who were attacking the NZNF members, but how am I supposed to verify that information? -Willmcw 04:09, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Is there a source for the MCA being a "Trotskyist organisation?" Again, the sources don't mention that. -Willmcw 04:42, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the TVNZ news report you will see that the person attacking cale olsen was holding an ISO sign, you will also note that many of the people surrounding the front were also holding signs belonging to the ISO and the MCA. This is evidence enough. You mention that the ISO does not mention the MCA, that is bullshit, take a look at their website, they have a large notice on the main page supporting the MCA march. [4] As for the "voice" statement, the main reason the MCA was formed was to give a chance for all groups with a common goal (socialist, zionists, etc.) to march under one banner. I am reverting to the original version, as it is far more accurate. - Molloy

As for the "Trotskyist organisation", several members (ISO, The Socialist Worker, Freedom Shop Collective) all belong to this catagory, with that, and the MCA's own policy in mind, it falls under the Trotskyist catagory. On the flipside, the MCA is not, and is not intended to be a registered NZ Political Party, so should be removed from that catagory. Cheers. - Molloy

Who is Cale Olsen? Can you give me a time? Regarding ISO/IST, I got them reversed. In any case, there's no indication of greater involvement from either then a single announcement on the main page of one. If the goal was for many groups to march under one banner, then that is what we should say, once we've found a source for it. Regarding Trotsky, since we haven't linked MCA to these groups then it is not appropriate to use guilt by association. MCA has a list of supporters, most of whom are probably not Trotskyist. -Willmcw 23:32, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

If you don't know who Cale Olsen is, then you probably should not be editing this article. He was the National Front member who was attacked with a maori club, and ended up seriously hurt. There was an interview done with him recently, where he recalled his account of events, I'll try and find a record of it. As for the article, I'm reverting several points:

• On the 14/08/04, a public meeting was organised by Tze Ming Mok, spokesperson and founder of the MCA, during this meeting, David Zwartz spoke, and offered his complete support of the party. He was also present at the protest. David Zwartz is a Zionist, and head of the NZ Jewish Council. Also present were members of the Freedom Shop Collective, a known Anarchist group and the ISO, a know Socialist group. All of these attendees marched in the MCA protest, so may be considered directly affiliated with them. In addition to this, the MCA was formed to give these many groups a common banner to march under, so can be considered as "giving a voice" to these groups. In light of this, I have re-added my previous statement to the article: "MultiCultural Aotearoa is an Anti-Nationalist group, that was formed in 2004 to provide a voice for Socialists, Anarchists & Zionists in New Zealand. It was formed in response to alleged "racist attacks" in the New Zealand capitol, Wellington"

• The "On the other side of town" statement is inaccurate, the MCA march started at Te Papa, but was intended to, and did conclude on the steps of Parliment, with full intentions of confronting the National Front.

• The "A different group" is totaly inacurate, as the group constituted of members of the MCA, and several of it's constituents, including the ISO and Anarchist Round Table. This is ascertained by viewing footage and pictures of the event. - Molloy

1. The only guy who is attacked on screen is seen from the back and is wearing a grey shirt. Is that Olsen? I don't see how you can tell from this video who his attackers were. Who's the guy on top of the car waving the pipe? Apparently you have a gallery of photos of NZNF, MCA, ISO, and Anarchist members. Unless this rogues gallery is public, it is not verifiable information. Sorry, but the world doesn't know what Olsen looks like.

2. Do you have a verifiable source that Mok, Zwartz, etc, formed the MCA at that meeting? That is a very different matter than simply marching with the MCA.

3. You seem to be saying that the MCA march ended at the place where the NZNF was located, and the entire group of marchers attacked the NZNF. That is different than what the news sources say.

4. It is possible that some number of people who were in the MCA march later joined the confrontation with the NZNF. That doesn't mean they were the same group, just that there is some overlap.

Bottom line is that you still have not provided any source to support your assertion that the MCA was founded to provide a voice to Socialists, Zionists, and Anarchists, that the MCA members attacked the NZNF, or that the MCA is a Trotskyist organisation. Please don't ask me to watch that video again. I note that the NZNF website, which you might be familiar with, barely mentions this altercation at all. So I think that we are overemphasizing this march.

Regarding my expertise versus yours. I don't doubt that you are far more familiar with the MCA than I am. However, since you may not rely upon your personal experience, that difference shouldn't matter. The only things that belong in this, or any wikipedia, article are those facts that anyone can verify. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:33, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Contact Mok, or another MCA associate, and ask for the minutes from the public meeting. They back up a lot of what I have to say. Here is a picture of Cale Olsen [5], I am standing by my previous statements. - Molloy

To say that "fighting broke out" is grossly in error, I'll steal the newsreaders quote from the news report: "One National Front member grabbed a protesters sign, and was attacked". - Molloy

I think this article is going around in circles, with a tug of war between my independent view of events, and your pro-left version. I can honestly say, as a member of the independent media, and present at all associated events mentioned (and more), that the current article is fair and balanced. - Molloy

Thanks for contributing to wiki, but I believe that you do not represent an "independent view", whatever that is. Apparently you are a "senior leader" of the NZNF, which the MCA was formed to oppose. Further you do not understand the concept of verifiability. The last edit you worked on had many details not included in any of the press reports. I don't know if you saw them first hand, or if you made them up. It doesn't matter. If the info is not contained in a reliable, verifiable source, it doesn't belong in the article. Regarding who threw the first punch, accounts vary so it is more accurate to simply say that "fighting broke out." -Willmcw 19:09, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have provided information, sources and all reasonable evidence in order to back up my claims, all verifiable with a little effort. If you don't take the time to verify my claims, then you have no right to pose as having enough knowledge on the subject to warrant becoming an author of this article. For a subject such as this, information & sources do not come as easy as a touch of a button. Sometimes you need to dig around to gather information, such as how the MCA was formed, etc. I myself had to ask Mok for the minutes of their meeting, you should do the same. Considering I was the original author of this article, and subsequent edits by yourself and other have proven innacurate, and grossly biased towards the left, I am reverting to the last good version of this article. - Molloy

Please review Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Saying "I was there and know it to be true" or "go find out yourself" doesn't count; you need independent confirmation of your claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are only four sources listed as references listed for this article. The version that I wrote is supported by them. Other details, like Maori war clubs, are not supported. If editor Molloy would like to make available additional information that is reliable and verifiable, then we can add that as well. If anyone has a document like meeting minutes, then it can be scanned and uploaded with a link in the talk pages to provide verification. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:12, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a scanner, but feel free to call Mok and ask her for a copy of the minutes, her number is in the Wellington phonebook. Cale olsen was attacked with a club, the Sunday herald (24th September) supports that claim. - Molloy

Re-read Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Bring a link to the Sunday Herald (24th September). Oh, and "feel free to call Mok and ask her for a copy of the minutes" doesn't count as citing sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've added "clubs and knives" to the article, per the NZ Herald article. If Molloy doesn't have a scanner, then perhaps he can type the relevant sections in here. It's his assertion, so the burden of proof is on him. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:44, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

It Looks like the editing war has cooled slightly. I'm going to remove the statement that "All sources agree that the march concluded peacefully". The TVNZ article [6] headline states: "Violent clashes at anti-racism rally", obviously refering to the MCA, not the NF. - Molloy

Fair enough. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:16, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Question

Hi, this looks like an interesting article. Can someone explain a bit more about the "racist attacks" which supposedly caused the formation of the MCA? When/where/who? Also, is the MCA still active? -- FP 07:55, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

See New Zealand National Front, where incidents of racial attacks are discussed. While researching this article I did not see any indication of ongoing activity by the MCA. It may have been a one-time coalition that joined together for a parade. BTW, thanks for your cleanup of the article. I'd been meaning to do that myself. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:08, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

If it's relevant, I was beaten walking home from work carrying my shopping a few weeks before this protest, but I doubt that this is one of the racial attacks mentioned, as I'm European and the racists that attacked me (and my sister a year prior) were Maori. Neither of us attended the protest. Enzedbrit 22:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Not sure who the heck posted this article, but... The founding meeting itself, was just a general meeting of concerned citizens, which saw a number of heartfelt debates, including re. the issue of confrontation, with majority deciding that it was unethical, inappropriate and counterproductive. Naturally, there was a jewish presence at the meeting given the nature of the events that have given rise to it - that does not mean they were all zionists, and if they were - the point is?

Furthermore, half the people described were not present at the march, given some of the sentiments that came out at the meeting re. goals + means

so please make sure you verify your info

Comments on this page are not a part of the article. The article does not mention any of the people you listed. The article has been well-researched. Thanks, -Willmcw June 30, 2005 22:53 (UTC)