Tim Wikiriwhi. Hamilton … No to Fluoride!

water treatment

Dear Mayoral candidate,

We are a local group of citizens with an interest in promoting the health benefits of fluoridation.

Could you please respond to these two questions:

(1) Do you support the resumption of fluoridation in Hamilton’s water supply?

(2) If the referendum results in a majority of voters in favour, would you support the resumption of fluoridation?

The opinions of candidates obtained from this canvass will be made known to our members and released publicly.

With regards,
Selwyn June

‘Fluoridate Our Water’
A Campaign for Better Dental Health in Hamilton

Tim Wikirwhi respond’s….

Dear Selwyn,
Q1. I don’t believe my personal opinion about Fluoride is what is important, but there are higher issues/ principles at stake.|Namely it is not the councils job to force medicate the people of Hamilton, which is what the pro-fluoride lobby seems to believe is ok.
My argument is the people who want fluoride in their water can find means of dispensing it into their own supply.

Q2. No! I do not support binding citizen referendums which seek to impose upon the legitimate rights of minorities.
Ref to my answer above.
Fluoridation is one current task which the council can rightly divest itself, and pass on to citizens as a matter of personal choice and responsibility.
Kind regard’s Tim W.

Richard Dawkins Produces Another Theist: Proslogion


Dr. Laura Keynes grew up in Cambridge, arguably the intellectual center of the United Kingdom. She studied at the University College of Oxford on a full-ride scholarship and ended up earning a Doctor of Philosophy degree. Her doctoral thesis was on epistemology, the study of knowledge and justified belief. As her last name indicates, she is the great-grandniece of the famous economist John Maynard Keynes. She is also the great-great-great-granddaughter of Charles Darwin.
Why am I telling you about this young lady? Because she recently wrote an article entitled, “I’m a Direct Descendant of Darwin…and a Catholic.” Now the title didn’t surprise me at all. I know a lot of Catholics (and even more Protestants) who believe in evolution. Indeed, one of the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement, Dr. Michael Behe, says:1

You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it.

However, as I read the article, I couldn’t help but smile. You see, Laura was raised Catholic but drifted away from the faith after her mother became a Buddhist and her brother rejected all organized religion. By the time she was studying for her Doctor of Philosophy degree, she was an agnostic. During that time, however, Richard Dawkins had opened up an international dialogue on the existence of God with his thoroughly awful book, The God Delusion. Well, Laura decided to read Dawkins and his fellow New Atheists, and she says:

I expected to be moved from agnosticism to atheism by their arguments, but after reading on both sides of the debate, I couldn’t dismiss a compelling intellectual case for faith. As for being good without God, I’d tried and didn’t get very far. At some point, life will bring you to your knees, and no act of will is enough in that situation. Surrendering and asking for grace is the logical human response.

I don’t think that’s the response Dawkins and his colleagues were hoping for. The entire article is worth a read, because it really shows how an intellectual person should respond to what the New Atheists have produced:

I read central texts on both sides of the debate and found more to convince me in the thoughtful and measured responses of Alister McGrath and John Cornwell, among others, than in the impassioned prose of Hitchens et al. New Atheism seemed to harbor a germ of intolerance and contempt for people of faith that could only undermine secular Humanist claims to liberalism.

Notice what she did. She read the central texts on both sides of the debate. Most people don’t do that, but it is the most important thing a real intellectual can do. I suspect that working on her dissertation made her realize that there is no such thing as an unbiased argument. All authors start with their preconceived notions, which color the way they view and present the evidence. As a result, the only way to come close to getting an unbiased view of the debate is to read from both sides. By doing that, you will hopefully be able to start seeing how the various authors are “coloring” the evidence, and that will allow you to remove some of the “coloring” and look at the evidence a bit more clearly.

When Laura did that, she saw something that should be immediately obvious to those who read both sides of this debate: the New Atheists are full of bluster and bravado, but their arguments are incredibly weak. Those who have responded to the New Atheists (at least the ones she read) provide a start contrast. They are calm, measured, and rational in their response. According to her, this contrast helped to demonstrate that the majority of the evidence clearly goes against the atheist position, and the bluster of the New Atheists is an attempt to cover up this inconvenient fact. As a result, she returned to the faith of her childhood.

Read more >>here<<

‘Revolution At The Roots’ Making Hamilton’s City Council smaller,better, and more conducive towards Prosperity. Tim Wikiriwhi.


I wrote the following spiel for the last H.C.C Elections.
Since then Economic doom and gloom has increased…The City of Detroit has gone belly up in debt.


‘Revolution At The Roots’. Making Hamilton’s City Council, Smaller, Better, and more conducive towards prosperity
August 5, 2011 at 9:22pm
‘Revolution At The Roots’. Making Hamilton’s City Council, Smaller, Better, and more conducive towards prosperity. By Tim Wikiriwhi Independent Candidate for Hamilton West. HCC elections 2010

Election time is painful for me because it is a time when common sense looses its currency and is trodden underfoot by fanatical lobby groups with vested interests, and forked tongued power hungry politicians who will say and promise the moon for the sake of getting elected.

The financial imprudence, and Nannyism matters little in this feeding frenzy of demands and election bribery.
No one raises such common sense realities because election meetings are not about economic realities or justice, but about political power and imposing vested interests upon our communities.

Well I wont have a bar any of that. I have decided not to attend lobby group meetings because I dont have any political favors for sale.
I’m not putting up any election signs because I don’t want someone to vote for me just because of my good looks on a billboard.
I want people to vote for me because of my principles and financial prudence.
That I did not attend a meeting on getting commuter trains to run between Hamilton and Auckland, or one on city art, does not mean that I have no interest in these various issues, but that I know the council is running in the red with a climbing debt currently at $338.5 million which is projected to blow out to over $700 million before the next decade is through.
What this tells me is the junket is over! Past councils have mortgaged us to eyeballs, and getting this debt under control must be the highest priority of the newly elected council.
This is one reason I implore voters to turn a deaf ear to the big talking, big spenders whom have been in council so long they have grown roots!
These buffoons have run the city into the red, and yet they continue to promise heaven and earth just to be re elected.
I ask voters to not allow themselves to deceived and bankrupted by these incompetent dinosaurs, but to boldly vote in fresh people whom are committed to taking on the hard task of trimming down the size of city council to focus on core infrastructure, and getting the rates burden under control.
Not only will such an approach ease the effects of city council upon Hamiltonians, it will render it far more sustainable, and eliminate the very real environmental risks that occur when essential infrastructure are under funded and neglected due to having an obese council that frivolously wastes money in superfluous enterprises that it ought to left to free enterprise and voluntary community action.

If elected, I will start the dialogue and promote alternative ways to achieve the goals and dreams of Hamiltonians by means that don’t involve an increasing rates burdens or bureaucracy.
The problems that we face in Hamilton are far unique. Around the world the problem of bloated bankrupt bureaucracy, its mismanagement and suppression of prosperity are reaching such proportions that even Castro’s Cuba is looking at axing hundreds of thousands of State jobs and allowing free enterprise to work its economic miracle.


Books such as “Revolution at the Roots… making our government smaller, better, and closer to home” by William D Eggers and John O’Leary, and “Freedom to choose”, by Nobel prize winner for economics, Milton Friedman have already clearly defined the problems we face, and point the way to recovery, grow and prosperity.
If elected It is the ideas written in such insightful volumes that I will promote in the media so that Hamiltonians can see for themselves the wisdom of reducing the size and scope of Council to essentials, and the benefits that come from maximising free enterprise.
Thus my dream for Hamilton is to have a city council that is trim, and councillors that respect liberty, private property and free enterprise.
I envision a council free of small minded Nanny-ism, peopled with those committed to serving the community not tyrannizing over it.
While some may think my dream lacks grandeur…no Pyramids. No Coliseums, they forget that low rates, sustainable core infrastructure, and economic prosperity are a Win, Win, Win, for everyone, and the way to insure Hamilton’s future greatness built upon the innovations of Hamiltonians themselves whom unburdened by extortionate rates and red tape, can make our city great.

Prosperity will never come by foolishly trusting petty grand standing politicians whom inevitably lead us further into bankruptcy.
Vote Wikiriwhi for Hamilton West!

Hamilton City Rates System Review 2011. Where I Stand.

Me @ my Day job Fonterra Terapa.

My submission to The Hamilton City Rates system review.
September 22, 2011 at 7:34pm
On line Submission form – changing Hamilton’s Rating System
Thank you for taking the time to make a submission. Rates are a significant matter and it’s important we know what you think so Council can consider your views when making a decision.
Submissions must reach Council by Wednesday 12th October at 4pm.
Submissions to Council’s proposed Rating review are public. Your submission will be included in Council reports, which are available to the public and media.

1. It is proposed to change our rating system to one which is based on the total value of a property including land and buildings (Capital Value or CV), instead of the current system which is based only on the land value of a property (LV).
Do you support this change? (Please tick one)
Don’t know

Tim W Comments: *NO* I find this suggestion repugnant. It is a system which discriminates against those who have invested in property, and also does not promote self responsibility in water usage or waste. A system of direct user pays is far more just or a system under which the cost of the service supplied is spread evenly across all ratepayers as equal users is fairer than this proposed change.

2. The proposal suggests a charge per property for water and rubbish based on the total capital value of a property. This charge would vary from property to property and would mean higher valued properties would pay more for water and rubbish, and lower value properties would pay less.
Do you support this idea? (Please tick one)
Don’t know
Tim W Comments: *No* Rates should be based upon services used not property values. The council has no right to treat ratepayers as Cash cows to be milked. They have no right to extort revenues to fund their Grandiose pyramid building and circus schemes. They exist as a servants to take care of the utilities mundane utilities. they are not Ceasers whom can bankroll their absurd delusions of grandeur by extorting funds from an captive population. The extortion and Largesse must stop!

3. There are currently 7 different rates (differentials) for properties. The proposal is to remove 4 of these, which would mean all residential, multi unit, inner city and commercial properties would be rated the same amount per dollar of capital value. Rural properties would still be rated a lesser amount.
Do you support this idea? (Please tick one)
Don’t know
Tim W Comments: *Dont Know* I am opposed to any system which is merely a grab for more revenues by the council. I would support any changes which reflected the reality of services supplied to costs charged. I do not believe property values has anything to do with this. I would like to see a system of user pays whereby those whom consciously use less are rewarded with lower rates etc. i would like to see as many services as possible opened up to competition and free enterprise with the corresponding reduction in revenues taken by the council (It don’t with to pay the council for services I am getting from the private sector)

4. The proposal recommends central city businesses pay a lower rate so that the change to their rates will bring them into line with other commercial properties. In the past they have been paying a higher rate. This will give a boost to the central city.
Do you support this idea? (Please tick one)
Don’t know
Tim W Comments: *YES* Yes I wholeheartedly agree. The free market requires that all business is not crippled by unfair systems of Taxes and rates etc. I strongly appeal for a system of user-pays, thus giving thrifty businesses the opportunity to reduce costs, and gain competitive advantage by more efficient operations.

5. In order to give ratepayers time to adjust, it is suggested to phase in the change to capital value rating over 5 years form 1 July 2012.
Do you support this idea? (Please tick one)
Don’t know
Tim W Comments: *Dont Know*

I would like that period to be much shorter if the resolutions prove to be favourable to ratepayers (Eases their rates burden) and much longer if the council resolves upon a more rapacious revenue grab.

6. Are there any further comments or other rating issues you would like considered?
Tim W comments…*YES* Council spending is out of control. It is they whom are to blame for the current crisis, esp those whom have been in council for successive terms. I would like an inquiry into who is responsible for supporting this largesse and for the public to be informed. I also would like to have a charter enacted which sets down strict austerity measures restricting future council spending to only essential infrastructure, debt reduction, and a reform process which systematically reduces the councils spheres of operation and divests it of all interests which are not its proper duty to be involve with.


This is a ruff sign I hurriedly produced minutes before a meeting at the last HCC elections. it is a typical zero budget,rush Job, yet it tells a frightening truth about the sky-rocketing city debt under successions of Bad…big spending Mayors and councillors. It shows that I warned Hamilton this would happen in 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010!

Creationism or evolutionism: the theory of evolution refuted.



Though I cant profess to being a privileged member of any high society of Academia the responses I have received on two Facebook pages which claim to be forums for discussion on the rationality of the Christian faith and Creationism…. are very telling…

Facebook page 1….

JL wrote… Big Fail by you Tim Wikiriwhi

CRA wrote… I was looking for two facts. Instead I found a video link. Video blogs are almost always both poorly done, and set up by people who are neither able to write nor reason well, so I see no reason to waste time watching.
If you have any actual facts to present, please present a cogent argument with references from credible sources. When speaking on scientific topics such as the theory of evolution, an example of a credible reference would be a link to research published in a peer-reviewed journal. Links to personal or advocacy sites, accounts of personal revelation, unpublished research (or research published anywhere other than in a peer-reviewed journal), scriptures, and personal opinions are not evidence.

Tim Wikiriwhi (me) wrote… 1,2…. non-answers.
The video was very short and presented two facts Cynthia….not personal opinions
yet all you do is make a general smear against ‘video blogs’… and prove you are too lazy to watch the video… yet still feel vindicated making a comment…. sharing with us *your un-referenced personal opinion*.
Sort of hypocritical dont you think?
May I suggest you only comment on things you actually bother to examine?
You waffle on about ‘credible references’… as if an argument requires the signature of one of your ‘priests’ …

ZH wrote…. He makes a series of misrepresentation of evolution. Around 0:24 seconds into the short video, he made his first misrepresentation. He claims that evolution claims life came from non life. This is false, as evolution never claimed to have authority on our origins in a cosmological sense. It’s intent is to explain the complexity of life and what lead up to what it is today.
A second later, he makes the claim that it is a random process. Most of evolution is in fact the complete opposite. Though there is no grand exterior force manipulating what happens, we know that mutation often occurs as the result of natural selection. A process in where traits best suited for one species typically carries on to later generation, as those carrying those traits have a higher likely hood of procreation.

JP wrote… What facts did your video present?

BB wrote… Yes what facts were those Tim Wikiriwhi?

“IF living organism cannot produce new genetic information.’

IF. Which is an assumption.

Life has never been observed to come from non-life?

Is that the other one?

CRA wrote…. Unlike you, Tim, I’m haven’t made any claims about presenting “facts” that supposedly refute an established scientific theory. When a person makes such claims, he must be prepared to be held to a high standard. You would seem to be lacking in that preparation.
I promise you that if I ever claim to have scientific information to offer, it will be backed with credible references. At the moment, I am quite comfortable with the knowledge that the lack of communication skills and coherence displayed on your comment are wholly consistent with my overall opinion of most video bloggers. You fail to provide the promised “facts,” instead attacking someone who has expressed a willingness to read them if you will but write them out and show your proof.

ZH wrote… XXXXX: I noticed he made no attempts at explaining why what he perceived about evolution to be true. He uses instead vague generalization and intentional misrepresentations of evolution, to undermine the complexity of evolution . Thus shallowly “winning” without having to actually say anything.

SH wrote… What exactly do they mean by “new genetic information”? The term is always defined very vaguely in these arguments.

Also, even if all current models of Abiogenesis were proven unworkable, populations will still change over successive generations. Evolution will still happen.

To be clear, Evolution-theory does not need Abiogenesis(life coming from non-life), it just needs living organisms.

Face book page 2….

TBI said… OMG! That two minute vid just disproved evolution with its deep insight into scientific theory!!! Oh, wait… No, it didn ‘t.

AM said … LOL!

AM said… I watched it. As a Christian, it disturbed me. Dishonesty (especially lying about science and terminology) is not good for the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. The video was a sad rehash of the usual pseudo-science factoids/myths. Truly pathetic.

ACC says… Shaw Wow. That video just made me devolve. Nonsense.

SW says…. that’s an impressive amount of lies and stupidity crammed into a single 2 minute video.

JA say’s…. Seen that video some time ago – it is as crassly ignorant now as it was the first time.

TB says… Even the title of the video demonstrates a logical fallacy; false dichotomy.

****My answer***** which follows I submitted to FB2 yet exposes all these replies from both FB pages…

Tim Wikiriwhi….
“Hahaha… 1,2,3,4,5,6,7… replies All devoid of rebuttal!
This is when you Atheists are supposed to say…. “Oh here is an example of life from Dead matter…. and here is proof of how A fish got the genes to grow lungs and legs…”
You all are Emperors with no clothes….”

….And that folks is how the Atheists deal with two absolute scientific facts they cant refute….
By Slander and denial.
Evolution cannot even get to first base… let alone second base…

Tim Wikiriwhi represents Affordable Waikato in the Hamilton City Council Elections. Mayor and West Ward.

Copy of HCC Elections 2013 005

Due to gross incompetence our city wallows in high rates and crippling debt.
Yet still I believe Hamilton could become New Zealand’s premier city via the rigorous application of the principles endorsed by Nobel Prize winner for economics Milton Friedman.
Reducing Council interference with private property, individual liberty, and business will allow you to realize your full potential.

Hamiltonian’s interests are best served when Council keeps costs down.
Lower rates means lower rents, and ultimately lower food and petrol bills.
Lower rates gives Hamilton business’s the greatest advantage to compete both domestically and globally.
While you forge a brighter future, I’ll focus on the reduction of city debt and rates by running a tight ship.
Council should stick to essential utilities.
I will promote community interests by soliciting philanthropy from the Private sector, encouraging voluntary community initiatives to develop art, charity and culture.
Let’s think smart, and aim for success.

Tim Wikiriwhi
Affordable Waikato.