Defending Orewa
August 29th, 2005 at 6:55 pm by David FarrarThe Green Party Blog has labelled Don Brash; Orewa speech as doing “more to damage our social cohesion and race relations than any other in many years” and “more dangerous than any of Winston Peters
No tag for this post.
August 29th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
Well said.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 7:48 pm
How can you call Jon Johansen neutral? I went to a conference where he spoke. I wouldnt have been surprised if he wore a Labour shirt under his suit. Im sorry but neutral is not how I would describe that guy.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 7:57 pm
dascout, he was being ironic.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 8:01 pm
Re Jon Johansen, I presumed he was playing the sarcasm card…
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 8:36 pm
David: I’m not sure that I referred to Orewa as being “Maori-bashing”, but okay… However, I would have thought Brash referring to Maori culture as “relatively primitive” was pretty close to Maori bashing.
More generally, if you are seriously claiming that Orewa wasn’t an attempt to appeal to anti-Maori prejudice, then you are being massively disingenuous.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 8:40 pm
I would also note that you haven’t at all dealt with Brash’s complete ignorance of NZ history, at the same time as trying to offer a solution to a historical dilemma. Specifically, Johansson writes:
Vote:“More revealing was Brash
August 29th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
Very well said.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 9:15 pm
Frog “More generally, if you are seriously claiming that Orewa wasn’t an attempt to appeal to anti-Maori prejudice, then you are being massively disingenuous”
Everyone who thinks we should all be treated as eaguals is a racist?
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 9:25 pm
Wow, I’m surprised at the results of the Massey University survey for Maori only. Much higher than I thought they might have been.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 9:33 pm
I’ve said it elsewhere and I’ll say it here: if you want a full blow-by-blow autopsy of Brash’s Orewa race-baiting it is on the pdf download at http://www.tumeke.org
DPF: Brash said Maori “have a birth right to the upper hand”. Enoch Powell put it as having “the whip hand.” Both speeches were designed to do the same thing. Where Powell appeals to a majority indigenous population to resist the non-indigenous people, Brash appeals to the majority non-indigenous population to resist the indigenous people. What’s worse? Do you see how insulting it is?
At Orewa Brash was an historical illiterate giving a history lesson – nothing has changed. Maori signed the Treaty so they could continue to be themselves, enjoy their autonomy AND be British and let the new immigrants enjoy their autonomy NOT so they could be exploited by them – that was the condition the government was established upon. If Maori have no mechanism to enforce those conditions then what Brash is threatening is untenable. Unilateral moves to invalidate the instrument of establishment and the continuing undertakings will be resisted.
But let’s take a solid example of what Brash says and analyse what it actually means in real terms: All Treaty claims resolved by 2010.
What if it’s Dec 31st 2010 and it is supposed to lapse and an iwi or whatever group has not settled, is only offered a handshake and a promise to think about renaming a street after the Crown massacre that wiped half the local population out? What will Don do? Say “tough luck, fellow Kiwis, you get what I give you whether you like it or not” or will he say “Let’s keep negotiating past the deadline and break my promise.” Whatyagonnado Don? With a deadline like that, all the Crown has to do is stuff around, which is what they do best, offer next to nothing and then everyone will be forced into accepting it? Is that durable? Is that fair? And with no more Waitangi Tribunal when the Nat’s start freeholding the leases on the foreshore and seabed to Pakeha is that going to be fair too?
Where’s the realism?
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 9:50 pm
Ah historical grievances! Who would think that the majority of NZers would be getting pissed off with 20 odd years of being accused of and eventually paying for events that took place a couple of hundred years ago!? Whatafuckingshock!
And Frog you are being disengenous by complaining about Brashes lack of historical perspective. Even if he had read all those, no doubt, important historical texts, if he came out saying the exact same things he already has you would simply find something else just as irrelevant to get your panties in a knot about. Play the fucking ball for Christs sake! Disagree with him on principle, but stay focussed on those principles and be honest about them.
It is WHAT he said that pissed your lot off (though I suspect it is more that he said anything at all) so deal with WHAT he said rather than WHY he might have said it and leave it to people to agree or disagree with your conflicting views on this issue instead of muddying the waters with superfluous accusations.
If, however, you cannot defend (or even explain) your principles rationally or honestly, as many more people are starting to suspect, then by all means continue to label your opposition ill-informed, unintellgent, uncaring and incurious.
Oh and BTW, Maoridom WAS a primitive culture. Perhaps not the MOST primitive but primitive enough, even by settlers standards, that shitting your pants over the assertion makes you an overly sensitive, Rousseau accolyte.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 10:04 pm
Selwyn get real, the example your propose is idiotic. The deadline is there to make sure that if people want to lodge a claim they will realise it needs to be soon. If there are outstanding claims, (lodged within a reasonable time) I have NO doubt whatsoever that they will reach a conclusion and have a ruling even if it takes a little of 2011 to do it.
You accuse Brashs government of wanting a deadline so all they have to do is stuff around and delay so that nothing is decided? What a fantasy! The very purpose of the deadline is to put pressure on the government to NOT stuff around, to NOT waste time, to provide the resources required and the system required to deal with all grievances before the time is up!
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 10:28 pm
If Frog wants to complain about “complete historical ignorance”, I find it amusing that the loudest defenders of racially-determined Parliamentary representation seem to know jack shit about why those seats were established in the first place.
Pot calling the kettle pango, I believe.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 10:32 pm
I agree with the divisiveness of accepting two people in New Zealand. It is the basis of racial tension and we inheret our cultural identities. Much like Irish dancing and or Dalmatian cultural gatherings. Bagpipes and Burns evenings paying homage to the haggis. Its time we stopped looking back to our progenitors and just be one people, accept our cultural icons and become Maori.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
BTW, when all you pale pink paternalistic pundits have got Maoridom sorted out could you make sure we get an instruction manual?
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 11:04 pm
Would have been better, Kinda_Invisible, if you had used examples of Government policies which are targetted specifically towards the Irish, Dalmation, and Scottish people in NZ, instead of cultural traditions and food which hiterto havent been part of the debate.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 11:08 pm
David Farrar asks how maori only wards on local councils will help raise maori incomes. This question shows a willingness to address socio economics as the be all and end all of NZs race issue, but shows no knowledge of policy primarily aimed at addressing cultural or symbolic injustice. Pondering how maori wards will raise incomes is like questioning how tougher sentences for crime will decrease the waiting time for operations, the answer is it won’t, and it was never the purpose. The majority of maori targeted policy is aimed at righting historical injustice, and of cultural recognition. The majority of policy aimed at righting financial disparity are non targeted, and rightly so. By blatently confusing these two seperate issues, David Farrar has made exactly the same mistake as Don Brash. Recognition is the single most important element for a country to be racially unified, to fail regarding recognition (as Brash has in Orewa) is immeasurably dangerous.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 11:10 pm
David Farrar asks how maori only wards on local councils will help raise maori incomes. This question shows a willingness to address socio economics as the be all and end all of NZs race issue, but shows no knowledge of policy primarily aimed at addressing cultural or symbolic injustice. Pondering how maori wards will raise incomes is like questioning how tougher sentences for crime will decrease the waiting time for operations, the answer is it won’t, and it was never the purpose. The majority of maori targeted policy is aimed at righting historical injustice, and of cultural recognition. The majority of policy aimed at righting financial disparity are non targeted, and rightly so. By blatently confusing these two seperate issues, David Farrar has made exactly the same mistake as Don Brash. Recognition is the single most important element for a country to be racially unified, to fail regarding recognition (as Brash has in Orewa) is immeasurably dangerous.
Vote:August 29th, 2005 at 11:53 pm
Frog, are you suggesting that Brash should have read the Maori version of the treaty? Or is there a version in another language other than English and Maori.
What exactly do you expect that Brash would determine by reading a document in a language in which he is not fluent?
Is it your understanding that Helen Clark has read those texts that you list, and that on that basis is more fit to be a leader of our country? I find that to be quite a remarkable viewpoint – I would suggest that Brash’s understanding of international finance (much deeper than Helen’s) would more than counterbalance any lack of historical reading. I certainly wasn’t aware that a history degree was a prerequisite nowdays to be PM. If so, then I should imagine some understanding of accounting (particular accrual accounting), and an acquaintance with ethics (particularly the bits about not telling lies or falsely signing your name) would also be necessary – and would rule out the other contender.
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 12:13 am
Brash and National need to distinguish their big point – which is the rejection of two standards of citizenship/two public law principles (and the interpretation of the treaty which leads to it) – from all the optional extras: anti-affirmative action, anti-dedicaticated Maori representatives, and so on.
All these latter points are best thought of as *ways* of having “one law for all’ – they’re generally time-limited redress procedures that a society well aware of the powerful affects of history and accumulated luck on the distribution of resources and opportunitiies in society can intelligibly embrace (they’re socially stressful measures, arguably belittling those they benefit even as they directlyharm everyone else -but they can be the best option and they in any case intelligible options).
The picture according to which all of us get to be
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 1:00 am
How is it, that Brash is not only allowed to act with uuch divisive intentions, but also to spout absolte lies about Maori wards and representation on DHBs.
There is no provision for special maori representation on DHBs, however if under the STV system maori find their way onto these boards then, that is a good thing.
As for Maori seats in local councils. He’s a flat out Liar there, or at the very least he’s incredibly inflamatory with the truth.
Lets get the facts straight. The only place where there are seperate Maori wards, is within the BOP regional council. These were voted for by the population of the BOP after provisions were made for such representation from central govt.
So for Brash to now want to remove these, he’s going against the will of the people of the BOP, plus breaking the so called rule of the right, and having more central govt involvement in local body politics.
As for his views of Maori, what an arrogant and clever bugger. When Maori are no longer the Indigenous people of New Zealand, and when Maori are no longer victim (implicit or otherwise) of institutional racism, when Maori are no longer over represented in all of the socio-economic indicators that show us they are having a shitty time, then we can get rid of the ‘special’ provisions for Maori and all get on with being homogonised.
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 1:38 am
Kimble: I say again, where is the realism. You state :
Vote:“The very purpose of the deadline is to put pressure on the government to NOT stuff around, to NOT waste time, to provide the resources required and the system required to deal with all grievances before the time is up!”
No – the pressure will be on claimants to accept. What does the govt. lose if they don’t? What? Their integrity!!! Ha! Newsflash: they don’t have any.
August 30th, 2005 at 1:50 am
PaulL, your comment is simply staggering in it’s sheer reductionism. If you really think that a knowledge of accounting is more important than a knowledge of history for a leader of this country, then why don’t we simply have an accounting competition instaed of an election? May the best accountant win!
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 8:35 am
‘No – the pressure will be on claimants to accept.’
No it wont. Do you really think that once 2010 comes around the government will just cease and desist ALL negotiations? Any outstanding claims to be cancelled? If so, then you are a fool (and will never trust Whitey anyway) so arent worth effort convincing further. Cancelleing all claims would lead to a greater outcry from Maori than was seen over the Foreshore and Seabed kerfuffle and wide spread disapproval from the rest of NZ as well.
People are generally FOR a dead line for Treaty claims and negotiations but that does not mean they are generally for shafting the claimants. What is much more likely to happen is that when the deadline approaches MORE generous offers will be made to prompt early acceptances.
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 11:13 am
PaulL, you are clearly unaware that there are competing versions of the treaty. When one states he has read the english version, it is accepted that he is refering to Hobsons initial pre-translated version.
Vote:This version was poorly translated for the northern chiefs in 1840, yet this maori version is the legal version, and can be read re-translated back to english for those who cannot speak maori- using our vastly improved understanding of te reo.
International convention requires the indiginous understanding of any treaty to be the legal version. I would expect anyone brazen enough to comment on race relations in NZ to be well aware of these simple facts, but you have shown yourself as someone who forms opinions first, then looks for justifications for those opinions later. Don’t worry though, this fault of ignorance is shared by most with your political persuasion.
August 30th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
Kimble: Now you’re saying claimants should wait until the last possible moment because:
Vote:“What is much more likely to happen is that when the deadline approaches MORE generous offers will be made to prompt early acceptances.”
How does this square? The government has a “fiscal envelope” (I think it is $1b – a fraction of this year’s surplus) to settle all claims. They have predetermined what the cash remedy is before they know what the problems are. If they can’t settle with cash only then other things need to be considered and that takes time. Deadlines have many problems.
August 30th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
I became a NZ citizen on 9/11. A day I will always remember. I will never forget Sept 11th 2002.
Vote:It was an honour. I am proud to be a Kiwi. I surged with pride as my team, led by Tana, performed the haka.
In becoming a citizen I learned about the privileges and responsibilities of being a citizen. Nowhere did the citizenship information talk about my rights.
I am a free citizen of this country and will walk the highways and byways and the beaches and the foreshore of this land as a free man, as a citizen. No citizen is my better or my inferior. No citizen has more privileges or responsibilities of citizenship than me.
I refuse to be classed as a second class citizen in my own land. I refuse to believe that tangata whenua means more than just ‘first lot of immigrants’.
I swore an oath of allegiance to this country and proudly sung our anthem in Maori and English.
I speak with the voice of a Scotsman but the heart of a New Zealander.
I believe that Don Brash speaks for me when he proclaims that there should be one law for all. Bill English was right when he wanted one standard of citizenship for all.
It is my responsibility as a citizen to “not do anything against the best interest of this country”. That is why, as a citizen, I can never vote Labour.
August 30th, 2005 at 1:01 pm
JamesC / Jingyang,
Thanks for your very thoughtful comments.
1. I didn’t say accounting was more important – the point I was making was that not reading this or that particular book is not in itself a disqualification – any more than any other particular domain of knowledge. If it is a disqualification, then I would argue equally that not understanding basic finance is a pretty substantial disqualification for running the largest business in the country. The reality is that all leaders (business or political) delegate in areas they don’t have the specialist expertise. It is how the world works. If you have a problem with the message, then attack that, not the credentials of the person giving the message.
2. Actually, I am well aware of the competing versions of the treaty. And that there is question from many as to the correct translation of the English into Maori and vice versa, and also as to whether all those who signed it could actually read written Maori (and therefore whether what was explained to them verbally and what was written on the page actually aligned). Now that you have been clear that we are not talking about reading the original Maori, we can now talk about competing translations – one occurring at the time, one occurring many decades later. I have some concern that our modern translations of words and concepts may not necessarily be any better than the translation done at the time. I think it is a little misleading to label an alternative translation as being “the Maori version of the treaty.”
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 1:17 pm
It would seem from the stats David quotes that the vast majority of citizerns want to move forward They dont want to be stuck in an 1840s time warp debating which version of the Treaty means what They see this as a circular self defeating debate that isnt advancing the position of Maori people So who are Maori people and what do they want I smiled at Craigs post and wonder how many other Maori people feel what he expressed.We have two paths forward in my humble opinion Either we can work together as a the multicultural society that we are or the Maori people and the non Maori peoples can stand and throw rocks at each other Im in the first camp
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 1:18 pm
It would seem from the stats David quotes that the vast majority of citizerns want to move forward They dont want to be stuck in an 1840s time warp debating which version of the Treaty means what They see this as a circular self defeating debate that isnt advancing the position of Maori people So who are Maori people and what do they want I smiled at Craigs post and wonder how many other Maori people feel what he expressed.We have two paths forward in my humble opinion Either we can work together as a the multicultural society that we are or the Maori people and the non Maori peoples can stand and throw rocks at each other Im in the first camp
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
Frog said: “The National Party leader
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
PaulL,
1)What do you mean by the largest business in the country? I know you’re not stupid, because no one of sound mind thinks New Zealand is a business,…. or do you?
Just in case you do, I’ve added some thoughts on how our country differs from a business, *the primary objective of a business is to make money for its shareholders, the primary objective of a country is the wellbing of its citizens, *a business is only inclusive of people who can produce, a country includes old, young, disabled, sick, and all those who teach and care for these non producers, *A business has no internal economy, thus cannot survive in the absence of trade, a country has an internal wealth generating economy, and its people can survive in the absence of external trade.
These are but a few.
The idea that the country should be run like a business is the very idea that keeps middle NZ firmly centre left. Its been tried, and it fails its citizens, for the simple reason that NEW ZEALAND IS NOT A BUSINESS! If its takes a history degree to make this BASIC distinction then I suggest you go and get one.
If by chance you were refering to Fontera or the like, then my humblist apologies.
2) Clearly, you still don’t understand, when the meaning of any treaty is under any dispute, then the indiginous interpretation prevails.
Regardless of what you think should happen.
Therefore, the maori version is not an ‘alternative translstion’, as you claim, but the ONLY version relevant to this discussion.
This is set in stone and you truly missed the boat on this argument.
So, do some homework and respond with something that is worth reading and not so drenched in ignorance.
PatMC, welcome to NZ, Scotland is a great country, and our country is richer with the presence of Scotsmen. I agree with one law for all. But Pat, historical injustices are not going to disappear by proclaiming to all maori that they are now english! Symbolic recognition MUST COME FIRST.
Vote:We have imposed english law, english government, the english language, etc etc… but because we call ourselves New Zealanders we want maori to assimilate, which is tantamount to asking the last remnants of their culture to simple vanish into an english dominated culture hybrid called the ‘kiwi’.
One law for all is important. But ignoring cultural recognition is the most dangerous ignorance facing race relations in this country. Don Brash has no solution to race issues, he has only catchy sound-bytes which his merry followers pick up with glee and use in ignorance of the history of our country.
August 30th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
a) National promises to address historical injustices promptly and honourably. They have more of a track record of doing this than Labour by a long way.
Vote:b) No one in NZ is made English!!!
c) No one need assimilate their culture just give up any claim to one culture being superior to another.
d) Always happy to embrace cultural recognition
e) Don’t assume you know more NZ history than me or Don Brash. Arrogance of the left.
August 30th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Hi James
Don Brash is not trying to smother Maori culture out of existence. All he is simply trying to do to end the grievances at a faster rate than the Labour government. Their record is somewhat slack. If you think of the major treaty settlements, they all happened under National- think Tainui, Ngai Tahu, etc.
Brash is promising to put the resources into it to and the sooner the settlements are dealt with, then race relations can improve and the country can move on at least more united, if not exactly as one people.
I say this as a Pommy immigrant myself, one who has a Maori partner.
So read Don’s speech in full- you will see it will be hard to dress it up as Maori bashing.
You will see that the “Nat’s speed up claims process” angle was somewhat missed by the media.
This is just a section (which I have posted elsewhere)- but read the speech in full. You might be suprised by Don’s reasonableness over the issue and wonder how the Horawiras of this world can compare Brash to Hitler.
Surely, Labour’s footdragging is more damaging to race relations? The left are the ones who are racist by wanting seperatism.
National want Maori to be compensated by 2010. Labour are willing to keep them waiting until 2020 or longer.
This is what Brash said-
“The current process almost seems designed to slow the settlement process down.
Members of the Waitangi Tribunal are not even full time. Indeed the chairman of the Tribunal is also the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court, and the Deputy Chair also serves on the Court. We will make full time appointments to the Tribunal and increase its capability so it can get through its work more quickly.
This will place additional work on the Office of Treaty Settlements and we will increase its capacity as required.
But that is not enough. We cannot allow the bureaucratic approach associated with the Waitangi Tribunal to delay settlements which could, given the experience we now have with previously settled claims, be completed quickly if we have the will and determination.
Previous settlements have set the parameters of future ones, and that should allow us to shorten the existing cumbersome process.
National will speed the process up by empowering suitable people to act as direct negotiators with claimant groups. We will challenge claimant groups to come directly to the table, to do the deals, and end the grievance, and allow their people to get ahead.
I consider this a vital investment in the future of race relations in this country.”
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
Hi Darren,
well said, but, 1)grievances arn’t always tradeable commodities. 2) Symbolic injustice can’t be righted by removal of all specific maori references (as Brash advocates), this removal is unfair- for it to be fair there needs to be wholesale changes to the structures of law and govt in NZ, and no reasonable person (right or left) wants this.
Pat, apologies for my assumption, but your quaint little patriotic tale complete with dons favourite buzz-word seemed a far cry from critical argument.
Vote:How would you address symbolic cultural injustice?
August 30th, 2005 at 8:22 pm
James c – From reading your comments on this post I realise that the rest of us are obviously ignorant so could you please explain to me ( and I’m sure many others reading this post) just WTF ‘symbolic cultural injustice’ is?.
Also please give me your interpretation of
‘indiginous’(sic)as I can’t seem to find it in my dictionary.
My family has been here since 1858 with all generations since then born here. Does this make me indigenous?
yours in (I’m sure) complete ignorance.
Allah protect us.
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 9:20 pm
FEELINGS? Is that what it comes down to? If the injustice is only symbolic then feelings are all that have been affected surely?
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 9:21 pm
James, get off your high horse.
Talking about NZ as a business is a figure of speech, as some people talk about NZ Inc or other turns of phrase. The NZ govt is the largest employer in the country, and is responsible for massive amounts of money and service delivery. I believe that running an organisation of this size without a passing understanding of accounting is at least as risky as running a multicultural country without having read the particular history books that you favour. And, more generally, my point was that running a country requires a whole range of skills, and that no one individual has them all. Suggesting that Don cannot be PM on the basis of one particular skill I find to be a little silly, and I offered some alternative skills that might also be relevant that the current office holder obviously doesn’t have. I could make a list of some others if you like, but I think I have made my point.
On the Treaty translation, my point (which I suspect you are wilfully missing) is that Don Brash cannot read the treaty in the original Maori. Therefore, he is left to read a modern translation of the Maori version into English. So your whole argument relies on the modern translation from Maori into English being more accurate than the original translation from English into Maori. I don’t see any proof offered that that is the case – and I tend to believe that languages and meanings change over time, meaning that claiming a modern translation is more accurate is risky.
Vote:August 30th, 2005 at 11:10 pm
Congratulations on finding a spelling mistake in my prior rant ‘prophet’, Its good to know when your opponents are left clutching at pedantic straws with nothing to say in defence of their questionable world views! Go the right you winners you!
Cultural injustice is injustice rooted in social patterns of representation. It is addressed by symbolic change such as valorising cultural diversity through legislation and the like. It is fast replacing class as the primary injustice in modern western societies worldwide (much to marxist dismay) and sorry all you money lovers, its not a tradeable commodity and can’t be fixed with a ‘settlement’.
Now, Brash is advocating destruction of all forms of recognitive justice pertaining to maori. This couldn’t be more detrimental to race relations in NZ, if you genuinely believe in racial harmony but still like Brash for his tax, then you should should lobby him for change to his policy as fragile race relations are in the interest of nobody.
Maori support for Brash is sitting at around 7%, does this not sound warning bells?
PaulL, 1) you refered to NZ as the largest business…..I offered that for someone to do this shows they have very cynical view of our society- figure of speech or not.
2) I’m not willfully missing your point, I am challenging it. Our understanding of the maori language and concepts has improved exponentially in our recent past, enabling people like brash to read an accurate translation of the legal version of the treaty. This improved understanding has helped move race relations forward as well, contrary to what many bitter conservatives may claim.
And ‘prophet’ (you clever little speller you), No sorry,you’re not indidgenhouse.
Also, Does anyone know a blog where I can get my views challenged by reasoned argument?
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 1:52 am
PatMC:
The personification of the immigrant mythology: “I refuse to be classed as a second class citizen in my own land. I refuse to believe that tangata whenua means more than just ‘first lot of immigrants’.”
You and your ilk are exactly why Maori have been screwed over for so many years. Pakeha let Pakeha like you into the country to keep Maori a permanent minority incapable of achieving redress or justice or acknowledgement of Maori autonomy. That was the point of colonialism, and with your views it still is. We would not have a problem if it were not for people like you. You, PatMC recent Scottish immigrant, are the problem – not Maori.
Scotland has it’s own laws and parliament and language – is that why you left? The awful racism of it all? Why can’t the Scots just be UK citizens equally with one law FOR ALL? Why does the racist UK have separate laws in a part of the UK just because some minority ethnic group is in a majority in an arbitrary area – most of them are probably only half-Scottish anyway. Scots are just one group of immigrants…
Now, being a New Zealander, I assume you agree with the above characterisation of the Scots problem.
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 10:27 am
t selwyn, well said. However I feel the simple logic of your argument will be lost on some of these readers, they tend to favour polemic over reason.
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 12:46 pm
selwyn
Vote:First rule of dirty politics, when you can’t play the ball play the man. Tut. Tut.
Try actually reading and understanding what is posted.
Choosing to convert from being a permanent resident to being a citizen of New Zealand was a significant event in my life. It was a choice. The mayor bestowed citizenship on me and dozens of others from a variety of nationalities. Ask Mark Blumsky, ex-Mayor, how wonderful and joyfulcolourful and multicultural the citizenship endowment ceremonies are.
My children, who where born here, who were born as New Zealand citizens, looked from the public gallery with pride as their father was made a citizen of New Zealand.
Is is wrong to be proud of being a New Zealander?
Am I any less of a New Zealander than any other citizen for being born in another land?
Are my children deemed to be less of a New Zealander than the children of people who have been here for 8, 80 or 800 years?
How dare you accuse me of being a problem. I am a citizen. I have paid tax. I employ Maori. I relish the right of each citizen to be free.
New Zealand is a far more egalitarian country than most. It is my home.
As a resident of 16 years I was manuhiri – a guest (of all the citizens of NZ).
As a citizen I am now a man of this land.
You may have been born here and take citizenship for granted. It is a privilege and an honour.
There are no second class citizens in my eyes. It is sloppy thinking to label such views as anti-Maori.
I, like Don Brash, am simply stating the obvious that one law for all does not disadvantage anyone. It is not anti, it is pro.
I will assume that posting at 1.52am has clouded your judgement and explains but does nor excuse your bad manners towards a fellow citizen.
I too am a gentleman. I forgive you.
August 31st, 2005 at 2:02 pm
Good on ya PatMC, new kiwi, welcome to NZ. We need more like you. And glad you enjoyed the haka which the ABs developed because it better represents the new All Blacks – and brilliantly lead by NZ’s best & most respected leader – someone who is not “pakeha” nor “maori”, just a kiwi, like you, like me, like most people in this great country want to be.
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 3:56 pm
PatMC: I accept that you are a gentleman. I may have well over-stated what you think based only on your two comments in this post. My characterisation of Scotland was meant as a counter-point to your assertions about “one law for all”. I would like to hear your views in that regard.
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 9:34 pm
James c(you unclever little speller you)
What a load of crap you spout.
You could start your own blog for your rantings and you and selwyn and the like could kiss each others arses all day.Just the four of you. That would be nice.
If you’re going to take the superior road you should at least be able to spell.
Otherwise you just sound like the dickhead I suspect you are.
This is the real world james and you sound like you have very little connection with it.
My question about indigenous was rhetorical obviously as you seem to have no understanding of the meaning of the word. If I don’t fit into your indigenous requirements I can’t see how maori do.
People like you will do more damage to race relations in this country than a dozen dons.
Oh and by the way I’m not a rightwinger or particular don lover. Just someone whose sick of listening to jumped up tossers like you with your pontifcal attitudes.
Allah protect us
Vote:September 1st, 2005 at 2:21 pm
Prophet, What a sad emotional little boy you are, how careless of me to hurt your precious little feelings. I’m so so sorry sweetheart, I wasn’t to know that you were never hugged as a child (or possibly hugged too much). Now that I know this I realise why you persist in refraining from reasoned argument, by the way, the UN see maori as indichenis for the purpose of treaty definition which was the context I used it in.
Vote: