The Republic of New Zealand
September 27th, 2007 at 6:35 am by David FarrarYesterday was not just the 100th anniversary of the Dominion of New Zealand, but also of the Dominion newspaper.
In their 100th anniversary editorial they endorse New Zealand becoming a republic:
For New Zealand, the journey will inevitably include becoming a republic. It is a step that the country needs to take, and take soon, as part of redefining itself to reflect the realities of the 21st century. If anyone now proposed a system of government where the head of state lived half a world away, who visited about once every five years and who had the job solely because her father had it before her, there would be few takers.
An informal poll suggests about 40 per cent believe New Zealand should become a republic, though there are differences over timing. That it is not more is surprising in a nation that prides itself on its independence, on its democracy, and on its egalitarianism. The suspicion must be that the only reason that New Zealand keeps a monarch is a belief that it cannot do better. That is mistaken. There are issues to be worked through – how much power a president should have, how he or she should be chosen – but New Zealanders should have confidence in themselves to do that, and to have one of their own as head of state.
One of the major reasons I hear from people on why they don’t want a republic is they don’t want Helen Clark as President, and with even fewer checks and balances on her. Putting aside the Clark has shown the current checks and balances are non existent (she retrospectively amended the Electoral Act to protect a Labour Minister), it annoys me that people assume the sort of people who want to be PM would be President. But Clark herself was asked yesterday whether she would like to be President as if that was likely.
It would be very easy to have a requirement in the law establishing the NZ Head of State that no person who has ever been an MP can become President, and fur good measure require say at least 75% of Parliament to agree to any appointment (if an appointment model is used) to make sure any President has broad appeal and is not a partisan.
I suspect people don’t realise that the nominal Head of State (QEII) would never ever interfere in a NZ political dispute against the PM, and that the PM gets to appoint and sack unilaterally the de facto Head of State – the Governor-General.
Helen Clark as PM is far more powerful in our constitutional monarchy than she would be under a Republic.
And while not wanting to beat up on Helen, I am disappointed she has one again declined an opportunity to show some leadership on this issue. Bolger knew in the 1990s that championing a Republic did risk losing support, but the whole reason you build up support is so you can spend it. Clark, I have no doubt, fully supports a Republic – but doesn’t want to expend any politcal capital on it.
The trouble with this approach is we have had republicanism by stealth, rather than by virtue of an informed and public debate. And this generates a backlash. Moves such as abolishing titular honours, changing the Oath, abolishing appeals to the Privy Council have all been done in an ad hoc fashion without a clear public mandate. Major constitutional changes should be decisions of the public, not just Parliament, in my opinion.
Anyway enough from me. Go and enjoy Dean Knight’s proclamation of a Republic.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:20 am
Without Helen Clark’s signature on it, how can we be sure this is authentic?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Our present system of nationhood is a farce. We don’t have the nationhood that we once had. The face of New Zealand is represented by the face of Helen Clark.
New Zealanders, I am sure can come up with the the right system for a State of the Nation. We need a New Zealand where we have a patriotic feeling for who we are, and what we are. We need to be proud as New Zealanders of our Nation, and not just for our sporting achievements.
We certainly won’t achieve this under our present tainted anachronistic system of government
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 7:27 am
There is a secret agenda to remove absolutely everything that involves Her Majesty step by step and reduce her role to something less the minimal. The next step maybe to merely have her validate the appointment for Governor General chosen by a ballot of Parliament with the winner needing a special majority on a preferential vote. Nominations coming from any MP. It would then be a simple step, to remove that last formal process, change the name to President and then bingo “Republic”.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 7:36 am
I agree with you David on almost everything concerning this issue.
There is one major hurdle to ever making that small leap from our current status to a republic – The good old Treaty of Waitangi. The Maori who have outstanding grievances may have something to say about dropping the Crown in favour of a President.
I may be wrong, so if someone can say tell me how the treaty fits in with a Republic, I would be obliged.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Maybe persisting with the Queen as head of state is one reason the nation still hasn’t grown up.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Perhaps we could drag the treaty, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century and use it as our constitution.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Cha
That won’t work. For starters there are to interpretations of the treaty, and secondly, and more importantly it doesn’t set out how New Zealand is governed
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Razorlight
But as a “founding document” it could be as good a place as any to start from.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 8:00 am
explain why
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Helen Clark maybe be divisive, arrogant, condescending, sometimes rude, lacking in manners, childless, exhibits favouritism towards umpartnered females, and many other things that do not make her ‘Woman of the Month’, but she isnt stupid.
There is no general desire for a move towrds a republic.
As for the treaty – be very, very careful. In its written form its a very simple, elegant and straight forward document. The three clauses – written with what those who wrote it knew and understood at the time – are simple and I think a document that it got right to the heart of the problem.
BUT, its all the interpretations that everyone puts onto it and into it that is the problem. Its being used by many as an alternate to actually allowing the country to grow up and progress. If anyone thinks that with the settlement of the treaty grievences that everyone will be happy, then Ive got news for you – it wont. It has one party who are tribal – and the essence of tribalism is that the tribe is the only thing that matters – the rest of the universe can go jump. The other party has a legal background where solutions are arrived at through legal actions. Both have historically resorted to military action when all else failed.
The two are incompatable. Add to that the constant needling with claims of ‘colonial influence’, ‘institutionalised racism’, etc, and its a never ending running sore.
If it was as it originally, was then no problem – but we can never go back now. The example of the ‘Principles of the Treaty’ in legislation are a typical example of what happaned. No one can tell you these mythical things are – thus they become anything one wants at the time.
However when the maori (thats anyone with a drop of maori blood) population reaches 51% (and thats if it does), then you will see the treaty dropped like a hot rock. Smart Maori know its holding them back also
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Helen isn’t stupid – but she does have the balls to push any agenda she likes – take the EFB as a case in point.
Wouldn’t it make a great election slogan for going into the next one:
“Helen for President!”
It would tempt her not to resign if that UN job fails to materialise…
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Yesterday was not just the 100th anniversary of the Dominion of New Zealand, but also of the Dominion newspaper.
Pardon my pedantry but as a former staff member of the Dominion who was proud to work there, the Dominion closed in 2002, when the Evening Post shifted to a morning edition and was renamed Dominion Post to try to hide what had been done.
The rag published today is not even a shadow of the quality paper the Dominion was.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Andrew
“Maybe persisting with the Queen as head of state is one reason the nation still hasn’t grown up.”
Could someone please define grown up?
Razorlight “I may be wrong, so if someone can say tell me how the treaty fits in with a Republic, I would be obliged.”
If I could only get my wife to post a comment, she’s only spent most of her career researching, working and teaching. She’s here in Canada at the moment looking at section 35 of the Canadian Constitution.
“Section thirty-five of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides constitutional protection to the aboriginal and treaty rights of Aboriginal peoples in Canada.”
a brief background is found at (of course)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-five_of_the_Constitution_Act,_1982
But apart from the irrational hatred of Helen, could someone please tell me what having Queenie as our head of state is actually – materially done from preventing us from “growing-up”. Canada a North American country of some 33million people hardly ever raise this issue. The just get on with it. No Canadian would ever to presume that their country hasn’t ‘grown-up’.
Personally I’m neither in favour of the monarchy or a republic, I’d just be happy to be NZ and get on doing what we do.
But yes short answer is Maori and the inept treaty negotiations process is the biggest hurdle to becoming a (banana) republic.
You can see it now on Wall St “did you hear?”, “No what?”, “Oh NZ’s just become a republic!”, “That’s awesome, they’re all grown up, now lets go and buy some of their manufactured goods, I like that Macpac gear, I hear it’s the best in the world, and that Dishdraw”, “You mean the stuff made in Asia”.
Isn’t it nice being grown up.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:33 am
davemc,
they were both quality papers for what the did, true dilution hasn’t been good for the Dom.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Barry:”As for the treaty”-It is difficult to see why it should be so when the originators of it described it as a legally naive hastily drawn-up document in order to annex the territory.
Once signed, it had no further use other than as a reminder to both parties to carry out its obligations and responsibilities. It is fast becoming a negative force, dividing the nation.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 9:58 am
I agree that both the Dom and the Ev Post as seperate papers (and I always got both) were excellent and the new DP has not been the same.
As they competed with each other there was a good hunger to beat the other with a story, get new angles etc.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Labour party strategy meeting-
Helen Klark- “What we need guys, is an issue. Something that takes the heat of the EFB, and also gives us a focus for the election that will allow us to avoid facing up to the criticism that we’ve made an absolute fuck up of the country”..
Limp wristed acolyte (squeaky and trembling voice) “How about the old Republican issue my glorious leader”..
Klark “Great suggestion. Lets go for it. Meeting over”
Stands and strides out of the room as the drooling lackeys leap to their feet and applaud her departure”.
Other limp wristed Klark acolyte- “Nhah nhah, I clapped longer than you Clayton”…
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Bluedecoy…
“Labour party strategy meeting-”
If that was funny it would be interesting, it’s just childish? Satire is funny, this was just shit.
Vote:So you added to the debate by? Or you just wasted your employers time and money by coming up with that sad attempt at god only knows what?
September 27th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Nice one Paul. Does put the issue in perspective.
OTOH, the fact that it doesn’t matter to Wall St doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter to NZers.
I think most NZers would prefer a republic, but they can’t be arsed with what it involves to actually get one. Which, if done properly, involves a great deal of work. Getting massive buy in to an idea like that isn’t easy. Even the pissly changes to our electoral system took decades.
So a republic by stealth is happening. One day there will be a referendum, which asks “Should the Queen be the official Head of State, or just a Very Important Person?”, and when everyone goes for the VIP option, the name will change to Republic, and everything else will have already been done.
I wouldn’t expect it to be an overwhelming majority. Maori leaders are likely to vote against it. People who hate the government will vote against it, as they do against everything.
And outside of NZ, no one will care. Inside NZ a lot of people won’t care. The Queen won’t care. Prince Charles might care, but I don’t care if he does.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Very interesting discussion.
The Republic Of New Zealand if created right could reinvigorate some genuine pride in preserving and protecting New Zealand’s great heritage.
What is its heritage?
New Zealand was created by the Judeo-Christian heritage inherited from Britain which has been maintained by the Westminster style of Government. The Anzus and Anzac etc traditions that our forefathers maintained and died for are an integral part of our heritage.
This has caused and protected our nation in a way that has given us the freedoms we have today. (Currently being completely restricted by the EFB)
But the protection that the Royal Realm provided both judicially and militarily is no longer available today.
A Republic could then have a President that is elected through a Provincial Electoral College which would bring back up the need of provincial authorities.
These Provincial Authorities would replace the Regional Councils that we have at present and would also consign to the grave another piece of undemocratic and uneconomic legislation the RMA.
These Provincial Authorities would bring back to the local areas their own plans for promoting their own region and if they wanted to dam up Queen Street to provide city water then they could do that just like the Waitaki district could say no Project Aqua. They would cause prosperity in the regions which would prevent the out of control growth of Supa-Citys like Auckland.
A new Constitution could be:
We the people of New Zealand, in Order to protect our nation, to uphold and establish Justice and Freedom, to insure domestic tranquillity, protect and care for the poor and the weak, provide for the Welfare, Growth Liberty and Defence of New Zealand ordain and establish this Constitution of New Zealand.
Article One:
The Government of New Zealand shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble; and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As unpopular as it is there is no country in western democracies today that has defended those rights more than the United States of America.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 11:53 am
If you want to read Colin James views on the subject, go to:
http://www.colinjames.co.nz/speeches_briefings/Dominion_Day_07Sep26.htm
I think a good balanced resume.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Why does severing our ties with Britain mean we have to become a Republic?
All we need to do to become independent is make our present Governor General the Head of State without any change in duties or responsibilities.
Vote:NZ would become a constitional Monarchy without the hereditary content.
Constitional Monarchies seem to work very well and are certainly cost effective in a tiny nation like NZ.
We could honour the Treay by having a Maori and Pakeha alternate in the Role of governor general (Head of State).
We not have a change all our statues – just delete references to the Queen.
We could even continue to refer to the Crown – just get the GG to wear some sort of crown on Anzac day. Easy peasy.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Except for the century of slavery, of course, in which some people had no rights or freedoms at all, and were forced to work for nothing. But that’s only a small period and only concerned a few million people. And the protection of domestic tranquility need make no reference to the Civil War in which a million souls were lost and entire States laid waste. These things happen but at the Constitution sorts them out in the end.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Except for the century of slavery, of course, in which some people had no rights or freedoms at all, and were forced to work for nothing. But that’s only a small period and only concerned a few million people.
Well no, actually. After the Civil War, and despite the passing of the 15th Amendment in 1870 which was intended to give Blacks the right to vote, the United States ran what was efffectively an apartheid system until 1964, under which Blacks were forced to attend separate schools, go to separate seats in cinemas and buses, could not vote, etc etc. It was known as Segregation and only began to break down in the 1950s with the civil rights movement… Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Brown v Board of Education, etc, etc.
I continue to marvel that a country that would so heroically defend others such as in World War II continued to deny Blacks basic civil rights until 1964…. the year the Civil Rights Act was passed, and only then because Kennedy was assassinated and Johnson got it through Congress on the wave of emotion that followed.
Fifteenth Amendment:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
(And Congress did not enforce it until 1964; it was the states that enacted Segregation — mostly the old Southern states which had had slavery. To Kill a Mockingbird remains a powerful account of what it was like to be Black in America right through the 1950s)
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
All we need to do to become independent is make our present Governor General the Head of State without any change in duties or responsibilities. NZ would become a constitional Monarchy without the hereditary content.
Only if the GG became a king. You can’t have a monarchy without a monarch. We already are a consitutional monarchy.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Who the hell mentioned America, the most fucked up and lets be fair – hated country in the western world as a model for democracy.
When Bush has the power to veto a bill that will give the children of america access to health care (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=84fd6b21-6c16-499f-878e-0f2f609ecb49).
I mean what about this statement just last week doesn’t make you want to sit on a grassy knoll…
“Bush at a news conference called the emerging bill “an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American” and vowed to veto it.”
Yeah bring that sort of democracy on, we need that like a hole in the head.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Owen , you say:
“…We could even continue to refer to the Crown – just get the GG to wear some sort of crown on Anzac day. Easy peasy….”
I can just imagine the 64 years that it will take to finalise the design of the crown.
There will be worries that it doesnt incorporate all the cultures and then the maori party will complain that it doesnt comply with the treaty, then OSH will get involved saying that it would be dangerous to wear, then the muslims would complain that it might possibly be worn by a woman and that would be no good, and, and, and…..
Maybe we could do without hat afterall.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
You don’t say?
I stuck to slavery and full scale war as two of those things that even the staunchest defender of the ‘USA as the beacon of freedom and peace’ delusion would have to concede was not ideal. There are others, but those will mostly do. For all NZ’s failing to have a Constitution, it at least didn’t allow slavery and internal wars were tiny affairs. After the Treaty that is.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
All a republic would take is an agreement between National and Labour to both support it.
My preference is that they declare their mutual intent to declare a republic starting in the year following QE 11’s death.
And this republic need not have a head of state Presidency or require any significant constitutional change. All it requires is a declaration that the Crown is the sovereign people of New Zealand and that a Governer General of the Republic acts on behalf of the Crown (the sovereign people). Everything then continues as now.
One could add that a 25-33% veto of any appointment could be made by Parliament.
Of course once we establish a republic – we would have a New Zealand Day. Amongst the existing days of significance for this – December 10, the day we realised authority over our constitional arrangements in 1947, Dominion Day and the we launched our independent parliament are the other options. Alternatively we just pick another day for our Republican public holiday. I prefer December 10 (reasonable weather and not too close to Waitangi Day and Anzac Day), as it allows a continuance of the two other days as now.
This makes up for losing QB Weekend (possibly replaced by something like Mid-Winter or Matariki).
ps
I don’t see any point to changing the flag while we are ruled by the British Crown. We should have a new flag when we become a republic.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I stuck to slavery and full scale war as two of those things that even the staunchest defender of the ‘USA as the beacon of freedom and peace’ delusion would have to concede was not ideal.
I dare say there are some people, some of whom post on this site, who would have little issue with slavery, let alone segregation as practised in the US. After all, they supported apartheid, which was the same thing.
My point was that the lack of civil rights of US Blacks did not end with your “small period” of slavery but continued in law until 1964 despite the Constitution.
For all NZ’s failing to have a Constitution
Our constitution works very well despite much of it being piecemeal in various statutes and conventions. We live in a healthy democracy with legal and political respect for civil rights and I like that.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
I can’t muster enthusiasm for a republic. The constitutional monarchy we have has served us well for over 150 years. It has stood the test of time and we are a free country with a great and noble heritage. The mere thought of Helen Clark without the constraints of tradition, custom and convention that we have now fills me with horror and foreboding. As it is she refuses to curtsy to the Queen and have grace said at state banquets.
It is very difficult at present for a person to hijack our government. There will be elections next year and Helen can be turfed out. In other countries the machinery of government is taken over and we have presidents for life etc. I say stick with what we have — with our present system we have a good balance between the traditions of the past and the ability to go forward boldly into the future.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Dude, I was being sarcastic! A hundred years of slavery after becoming a republic, and quite a long time before too, is not a short time. At least not for the slaves. Naturally there are to this day people in the US whose civil rights are not particularly well upheld, such as the massive illegal alien population and various oppressed minorities. But the same goes for most nations. Slavery, OTOH, is something that was not tolerated within the borders of most civilized nations for a long time before the US got rid of it. It was tolerated in colonies of the great powers, so I’m not going to get too high and mighty about it. But you wouldn’t have found someone in England getting away with flogging a worker to death for trying to run away back then, black or white.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Read this BBC blog and consider whether you still see the “Home Countires” as kith andd kin to share a monarchy with.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/rugbyworldcup/2007/09/hacked_off_with_the_haka_1.html
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
There are a couple of points about having an external entity as our head of state that are conspicuously absent from discourse on this topic.
the first point being that having an external head of state is an acknowledgment (in our statutes etc) that we are accountable for our actions to some external power. This is the same reason that having prayers in parliament is still a good thing, regardless of your beliefs. It reminds us that we shouldn’t be the ones constantly passing judgement and defining right and wrong (for our own purposes). The day we start making our own morality is the day we start losing it.
It provides us (with a modicum of) protection from that head of state being manipulated or pressured into things by individuals in this country. The right of veto still exists. One day maybe we’ll have a GG with the balls to do what’s right and start using it.
If we become a republic, then our politicians get to define what is right and wrong. They become accountable to noone (this ain’t a democracy). Sure, they’ve been doing that already (which makes me sick)… whatever happened to the independence of the judiciary? I’m just glad the army and police swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen (whom I trust because she has no incentive to screw us, nor screwy political agendas – unlike our current politicians).
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
“No Canadian would ever to presume that their country hasn’t ‘grown-up’.’
Its pretty third rate tho isn’t it? Especially when compared to the US, its much more succesful neighbour.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
successful?
How do you gauge success? the number of wars you can start and mess up? The proportion of your population who are sick? How much control you can have over your populace? How paranoid you can make them?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Redbaiter,
I know you are taking the piss but your lame attempts at sarcasm are pitiful, and you obviously have no grasp on reality. Anyone who can make “secret agenda Tim” look sane has got problems.
But I’ll take the bait. How’s your holiday in New Orleans looking this hurricane season? I hear they’ve nice things with that place now. You could always use a side trip to Utah, there are sects there that will give you young girls (wink wink), but then again there’s Virgin, Washington, as long as you have one of the mandatory guns that is required by law. But you could then also pend the night on the street with the 4.4 Million homeless people (funny what’s the pop of NZ?). Still there’s plenty more on the way that all so successful Sub Prime mortgages that seemed to be such a sound investment.
We all know I could go on, but the litany of bullshit that is that country is way to boring for everyone here. Funny guy.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Case in point.
One hour south of Vancouver where many go shopping. A friend was at the store using the more powerful canadian dollar (a measure of success?) to buy cheap American Goods. The store owner said to the Canadian “Canada eh. You have seasons up there?” Thankfully my friend didn’t let that one go and the reply was “you dumb fuck, I live one hour North of you”.
Rather easy to go to war with anyone and everyone when you have no idea that there is a rest of the world and even your closest neighbors are seen as distant strange people.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Paul, I think Vancouver is lovely. Unlike some coastal towns like, say, Tauranga, it doesn’t seem to attract the mentally diseased beneficiary types who tap away on their computer all day griping about the world being full of socialists.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
The US is more civilized than Canada. The US has its constitution, and that (still) prevents the same kind of barbaric attacks on personal freedoms and freedom of political expression as occurs in Canada. The place never really recovered from the actions of that communist swine Trudeau did it?
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Dead Dux, Tauranga is a lovely place, too.
Vote:September 27th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
adc
I must have missed the lesson in logic which argues that only countries having foreign over-rule are real sovereign democracies.
What is clear, is that your distrust of politicans, is actually distrust of the people who elect them. Those who want the GG to veto/interefere in the political process are actually seeking to politicise an unelected office.
Your opinion is not an uncommon one amongst those fearful of real sovereign democracy in the hands of the national people and placing their trust in institutions of “over-rule of the people” instead.
Though some us find the idea of anyone serving a foreign “Christian throne” empire monarchy (as those in Eastern Euriope served the Kremlin?) repellant. Those who believe in institutions being in government of the people -are in China called members of the Communist Party.
Whereas most of us prefer government by and for the people. Elected politicans are accountable to us – unlike “institutions” serving something not us the people.
When the Crown is the sovereign people of this land, not some foreigner, then our institutions serve the people of this country alone.
I also must have missed the lesson in logic that says that we can only have any morality, if it is not our own, but someone elses.
The only thing missing was open declaration of Christian throne rule as better for us than real sovereign democracy. Where the rubber of Christian heritage meets the road of Amercan fundamentalist adventism.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
looks like you did indeed miss a few lessons then spc
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
The US is more civilized than Canada. The US has its constitution, and that (still) prevents the same kind of barbaric attacks on personal freedoms and freedom of political expression as occurs in Canada.
Gosh, I find myself agreeing on something with Red.
Canada, for example, deported the Holocaust-denier and racist Jew-hater and misogynist David Irving in 1992 to prevent him expounding his views, while America this week allowed the Holocaust-denier and racist Jew-hater and misogynist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit and give a public lecture at my old university, Columbia.
New Zealand, to my shame (as I argued in one of the Columbia lectures I attended that NZ in many respects was freer than the US) stopped Irving coming here to give a public lecture, citing his deportation from Canada all those years ago.
I don’t think there is any viewpoint whatsoever that should be barred by the state from being heard. Not Irving’s, not Ahmadinejad’s, not Red’s.
Sadly, hardly anyone has ever agreed with me on this point.
Vote:September 28th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
The complaints about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia were not (IMHO) related to freedom of political expression issues.
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Several errors were spotted.. whoever made the ‘proclamation’ clearly doesn’t know how the Gazette works. The Queen, if she wants to proclaim anything, can do so herself and it’s not up to the PM to ‘transfer’ what’s from the London Gazette over.
If there’s a proclamation, it would be on a separate sheet of paper, with the Seal of NZ and signed by the Queen and the PM to make it a valid claim.
Vote: