Husbands as Taonga

October 6th, 2007 at 9:28 am by David Farrar

The attempt to stop a deportation by lodging a treaty claim that the husband is a taonga and protected under the Treaty is of course not serious.  It’s a publicity stunt, and the Waitangi Tribunal has sensibly declined to even hear the case.

I can understand why some Maori leaders are annoyed at the claim.  Vexatious claims just stir up antipathy in the wider population

Similarly unhelpful is when some fraudster starts selling passports or permits and claiming they have the right to do so under the Treaty.  It just undermines support for genuine Treaty claims.

Tags:

67 Responses to “Husbands as Taonga”

  1. Castafiore (262 comments) says:

    NZ First Party are going to declare Winston a Taonga.

    They need to change it to WinstonFirst Party !!

    The WinstonFirst party has irredeemably wrecked its chances and right to represent its voters and National should come out clearly and say that they will no longer work with WinstonFirst Party.

    A vote for NZ First is a vote for Labour-make no mistake about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. deanknight (263 comments) says:

    No doubt that in the mid 1980s many folk though trying to injunct the Crown from transferring assets to state-owned enterprises based on a treaty which was regarded as a nullity was a publicity stunt or vexatious.

    Or that arguing that the Maori language was a taonga and a Treaty argument could therefore be made to stop the disposal of broadcasting assets was daft.

    Or arguing that the incorporation of the Treaty into the RMA required that the Env Ct assess whether a development inteferes with the path of meta-physical beasts and the spiritual connection of Maori with those beasts would never fly.

    Marking something as “geniune” or not is incredibly loaded and hindsight shows that it is often specious!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Castafiore (262 comments) says:

    The Labour Party obviously has power over the tribunal according to Ngapuhi leader David Rankin, so they should force the Waitangi tribunal to make Winston a “Taonga” national treasure for two reasons.

    1/ He is the sole reason they continue to Govern.
    2/ The EFB would be dead in the water if it wasn’t for his poodle support vote.

    Clearly both items of Labour Treasure of National Importance.

    A vote for NZ First is a vote for Labour

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. rickyjj (163 comments) says:

    Tuariki Delamere?

    Oh yeah, he was one of those suss Ministers in the last National government.

    Guess it’s good to know Fields and Labour don’t have a monopoly on alleged fraud and immigration cock-ups…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. nih (361 comments) says:

    Needs more mercy IMO.

    He obviously has some relationship with his woman if it’s been going on for 20 years. Let her sponsor him to stay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. dad4justice (8,303 comments) says:

    Burn the treaty as it is a load of old shit .

    Time to release the handbrake kiwis and move ahead as one people not a divided Nation .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    I believe this woman has been a victim of abuse from her taonga. I guess some are just born stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. nih (361 comments) says:

    Burn the treaty as it is a load of old shit .

    You like burning things you don’t understand, don’t you. Do you even understand the relevance of the treaty?

    Probably not, as you haven’t managed a basic grasp of law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Lucyna (35 comments) says:

    When did NZ law change to not allow spouses to stay in the country?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. nih (361 comments) says:

    When did NZ law change to not allow spouses to stay in the country?

    Immigration deemed the marriage to be ingenuine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. David Farrar (1,901 comments) says:

    Dean – I am very comfortable with my assertion that claiming your husband is a taonga protected under the Treay is not genuine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    First of all, this man has a NZ wife, why is he being deported.

    Second of all if the amn was Maori then Maori leaders would not be critising.

    This all sounds very rascist and unconstitutional.

    How could it get this far,, Married to her he’s a naturilised NZer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    If this amrriage is in black and white after the marriiage fees have been paid,, fascist immigration needs to be sued.

    Any middle school kiwi kid could take the case on.

    2nd yr law student in reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. nih (361 comments) says:

    I’m not aware that any other details have been made public, but at a guess domestic violence or perpetual welfare receipt is involved.

    But be serious government, Auckland has been described as the largest Samoan city in the world. I think it’s reasonable to allow all islanders free access to our country, particularly considering so many of them are here already.

    That said, there needs to be something done about the level of cultural violence they’ve been introducing as well. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you want to stick around, learn the rules.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. JesusCrux (88 comments) says:

    hinamanu, I’m assuming by your name that you are Maori. What I want to know is that if you are a Maori, shouldn’t you be supporting Helen Clark? She does a lot of great things for Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    JC,,

    so did Muldoon (Kohanga Reo)and Doug Graham (treaty negotiations)

    Do you think Maori are happy with the foreshore and sea bed issue
    thats taken race relations to 1860 land rape levels.

    My only inspiration is that all treaty issues will be dealt with before republicanism. Many have not clicked on that republicanism means no crown, there fore no treaty.

    The treaty issues are of course more than money: land, marae, historical housing,, all comes under the hammer with republicanism .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pita (374 comments) says:

    Jesuscrux…I see your blogsite is as empty as your commentary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. JesusCrux (88 comments) says:

    Pita… I see your (non)-blogsite is as worthless as your last comment. What makes you think jesuscrux.net is my blog? I have a blog on a gaming site which I update frequently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Thrash Cardiom (298 comments) says:

    hinamanu, the republic government would inherit the laws, treaties and other agreements the current government holds. They don’t go out and start afresh. That’s why the treaty still stands even though New Zealand gained independence from Britain many years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    The treaty stands because it was a crown document and this country still fall under juristiction of the crown. ie ‘the crown’ as govt is called.

    Do you remember who the governor-general represents?

    Where there is no crown there need not be any relevance in referring to crown legislation.

    that will be the exact argument of the republicans.

    No more crown,, no more crown treaties on any subject

    and really,, why should there be

    Lets keep perspectives realistic and adult Thrash

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Thrash Cardiom (298 comments) says:

    The Queen of England is not the same Head of State as the Queen of New Zealand regardless of the fact that the office is invested in the same person. When NZ gained independence it chose to continue with a Crown rather than a President or whatever. If it had chosen some other governmental form it still would have been bound by the agreements the previous government was bound by.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. deanknight (263 comments) says:

    DPF:

    What about children?

    Or a partner’s body?

    Or koiwi (human remains) of a partner when buried in a urupa (burial ground)?!

    I’m not sure that it’s far-fetched to describe a partner as taonga, especially when viewed through Maori, rather than Pakeha, eyes…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,433 comments) says:

    Dean:

    DPF’s point about trivialising the Treaty seems relevant. Any thoughts on this:

    Similarly unhelpful is when some fraudster starts selling passports or permits and claiming they have the right to do so under the Treaty. It just undermines support for genuine Treaty claims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Thrash,,

    I don’t disagree with that last statement. It’s logical and commonsense

    and for awhile that is how the interpretation and govt will run.

    Unfortunately govts are not run by common sense but agendas.

    Treaty issues are a huge reason for republicanism.

    The truth is this country falls under two categories

    Tribal/lifestyle

    that is

    culture/social

    Maori are cultural,, Pakeha are independent lifestylers.

    A Maori asks, “where do you come from?”

    A Pakeha asks, “What do you do?”

    The clash of the culture/lifestyle is what Republicanism is about

    overt dominance of the lifestyle over the culture,,

    esp because culture has survived which the lifestylers try to dilute by saying one nation one people.

    That is NOT the reality

    Now,, do I have to prove the cultural aspect ??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,433 comments) says:

    Now,, do I have to prove the cultural aspect ??

    Sorry, yes. Phillip John requires references (though anything from Wikipedia will do – and feel free to pass it off as your own research).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. nih (361 comments) says:

    DPF’s point about trivialising the Treaty seems relevant.

    I don’t know if I’m taking an unnecessary tangent here or not, but the only reason Maori can’t issue passports is because we won’t let them.

    Once again though, we’re missing all the relevant details as to why her parter cannot stay. Let’s not speculate without any evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,433 comments) says:

    Nih:

    Once again though, we’re missing all the relevant details as to why her parter cannot stay.

    Oh pick me: because we won’t let the partner stay? What relevant details do we need?

    In this case the man in question is ex-Tonga. He presumably falls into an overstayer category – like anyone else – unless he can establish a genuine relationship or some other reason for staying in NZ. I think there’s something to be said about trivialising the Treaty if it covers not only Maori but anyone who is relevantly “associated” with Maori (to use a deliberately vague expression).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Right,,

    well since I can pass it off as my own research, lets continue with how I’ve begun, since no one is arguing with my perspective.

    First of all,,

    Maori still look Maori, Stand a Maori and Polynesian together, you’ll see no difference. Pakeha never discount a Polynesians blood count.

    Whakapapa.

    Maori differ from Aboriginals and some Native American tribes in that Maori recognise descendency. In Maoridom no one is thought of as half related,, the descendant is whanau.

    Language

    Maori still retain their language and not only that but distinct dialects.

    Marae

    This aspect is what many pakeha do not experience. Marae life is thriving and effervescent. To be on a Marae for a pakeha is to understand being amongst a distinct culture.

    Now this last aspect is a bone of contention for me. Unfortunately many pakeha have never experienced Marae protocol and life. I believe many would be curious and would love the experience and Maori need to be more convivial this way. The Marae is a neutral and public arena and normally doors are open for all. Sincerests though will find a way to truth.

    To keep within the confines of this blog,, at the end of the day, Maori just want to be Maori,, because funnily enough they are Maori.
    They need the freedom to be themselves.

    And at the end of the day I for one am satisfied with the ‘crowns’ honouring thus far of the treaty. And that is my best reference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,433 comments) says:

    Hinamanu:

    A very thoughtful contribution. We’ll leave it to Phillip John/Roger Nome to grade you.

    Your chain of reasoning leads to the following conclusion:

    To keep within the confines of this blog,, at the end of the day, Maori just want to be Maori,, because funnily enough they are Maori. They need the freedom to be themselves.

    Yes, subject to one thing: equality before the law. Or does someone think that Maori are exempt from the full rigours of legal compliance?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. nih (361 comments) says:

    Oh pick me: because we won’t let the partner stay? What relevant details do we need?

    In this case the man in question is ex-Tonga. He presumably falls into an overstayer category – like anyone else – unless he can establish a genuine relationship or some other reason for staying in NZ. I think there’s something to be said about trivialising the Treaty if it covers not only Maori but anyone who is relevantly “associated” with Maori (to use a deliberately vague expression).

    Just to reiterate, they’ve been reported as being married, but immigration found the relationship to be ingenuine. I’d like to know the factors behind that, but it’s not really any of our business in the end.

    Frankly if someone can convince someone else to marry them to let them stay in the country, I think we should let them stay, particularly if they’re from the islands.

    The treaty aspect to this story is complete bollocks and has been received as such.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,433 comments) says:

    Nih:

    Remember the multiple reported cases of sham marriage involving the Chinese community, a couple of years back? All I’m arguing (and you seem to agree) is that the Treaty doesn’t affect the position when one party to the relationship came from abroad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. nih (361 comments) says:

    Sorry, I should expand on that.

    I think anyone from the islands seeking to stay here has a very good reason: there are a huge number of islanders in New Zealand. Smoothing the way to allow them to come and go more easily would be a good thing for them and probably have negligible effect on the rest of us. I see no reason not to do it.

    Take a look at the relationship we have with Australia. Why not expand upon that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. nih (361 comments) says:

    Remember the multiple reported cases of sham marriage involving the Chinese community, a couple of years back? All I’m arguing (and you seem to agree) is that the Treaty doesn’t affect the position when one party to the relationship came from abroad.

    I had that very incident in mind when I said it. Getting married to acquire citizenship indicates they’re going to bring either a reasonable amount of money or skill into the country. This may be a little racist, but in particular I like asians because they’re willing to accept living and work arrangements the rest of us have been moving away from, such as small apartments and service industry jobs. I accept that their role in that is only temporary though, soon enough the wheel will turn full circle and we’ll be back to a minimum of stereotyping in these areas.

    But yeah, getting back to the point, the treaty is irrelevant in this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Thrash Cardiom (298 comments) says:

    Hinamanu: My culture is just as valid as your culture regardless of the way we approach life. Please don’t denigrate it with lines like “Maori are cultural,, Pakeha are independent lifestylers.” It’s no less valid for its differences. Do you mean Maori are more family/whanau oriented?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Isn’t it strange that such a small place like NZ has such a strong international interest,,

    But is it true the govt has put a cap on Asian immigrants.

    I mean,, lets face it, we only see the tip of the iceberg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Thrash,,

    with that family/whanau orientation comes the rest of my dissertation.

    Maori understand how the European world works,, in fact they figured it out very quickly,, more so than other indigenous peoples and have sorted the wheat from the chaff so to speak.

    How you thought I was denigrating yourself personally I have no idea,, but perhaps your personal lifestyle has been affronted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,433 comments) says:

    Hinamanu:

    Your 2.52 and 2.54 comments show a shallow understanding.

    Can I get direct answers from you?

    (1) Do you think the Treaty applied in the Chinese sham marriage cases?
    (2) If no to (1), then (speaking hypothetically – we know nothing about this case) would it apply in a Tonga-Maori sham marriage case?
    (3) If yes to (2), then does the Treaty govern the Crown-Maori relationship – or the “anyone”-Maori relationship (depending on how Maori want it to be applied)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. nih (361 comments) says:

    How you thought I was denigrating yourself personally I have no idea,, but perhaps your personal lifestyle has been affronted.

    I once had a rather pretty young Indian woman as a coworker. We were out on business and she chose that moment to inform me that white people had no culture, and Indians had a monopoly on it. I stopped the car and let her out. Unfortunately for her, it was a very long walk back.

    The moral of the story is, everyone has culture, if even you’re too narrow minded to accept it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,433 comments) says:

    Nih:

    Absolutely agree with your last post. And I have my own experience of such cultural relativism.

    You come across as an extremely reasonable person. Wherever did things go wrong between you and D4J?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Thrash Cardiom (298 comments) says:

    Exactly, nih. Too often I hear people claiming pakeha lack culture. In my opinion what we lack in the eyes of those who make those claims is a culture they can recognise as a culture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. nih (361 comments) says:

    You come across as an extremely reasonable person. Wherever did things go wrong between you and D4J?

    He’s not reasonable, which might explain it. Thank you for the compliment. I hope I’m doing a good job of keeping up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Peak,,

    The treaty is a documental agreement between two peoples,, not two people in a relationship. It was also suspiciously presented when pakeha numbers were few and completely ignored when those numbers grew.

    Maori saw it as a way to protect themselves from warring tribes whom were close to eliminating smaller tribes and Hapus.

    Amazing to understand Te Raparaha had assisted the British in devastating the populations of the sth Is,, there were no land wars in the Sth Is.

    Would like to learn more about Von Tempsky. He seemed a solid man and warrior.
    He seemed to have gained Maori respect,, Better not find out I’m gonna eat ma words though

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. nih (361 comments) says:

    Exactly, nih. Too often I hear people claiming pakeha lack culture. In my opinion what we lack in the eyes of those who make those claims is a culture they can recognise as a culture.

    I’ve been banned from editing the Wikipedia entry for ‘pakeha’ after adding a few reasonable lines on how it is used colloquially. In short, I really don’t like the word.

    My edits on ‘palangi’ are still there though. ;)

    That’s about as far as my activism goes, sadly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,433 comments) says:

    Hinamanu:

    I understand what you say – but could you please directly address my numbered questions? I numbered them to make it easy for you…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    There are many versions of what ‘pakeha’ means

    ‘Stranger’ was a strong contender but ‘tauiwi’ overides that more as ‘belonging to no tribe’

    My favourite meaning though is ‘first point of contact’

    Far deeper and picturesque.

    And though English is the most picturesque of languages,, Te Reo has many intricate and involved meanings which Native Canadians have appreciated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,433 comments) says:

    Just to clarify:

    If the Treaty is between two peoples, as you say, then how is it that individual Maori can cloak themselves with Treaty-based protection? That’s the point behind my questions, and I’m interested in your views.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. nih (361 comments) says:

    That’s a good point Taonga is something that’s valuable to them as a society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Peak,,

    simply NO to all 3 q’s

    there are no portions or sections in the treaty articled for individuals, couples or families.
    the treaty was designed for the rights of all Maori involving historical lands (hence Bastion Point) customary rights and the understanding that there were now two peoples/cultures occupying the land. The treaty is the legal standing of pakeha in NZ. On that understanding the treaty was legal binding for Maori and Pakeha to negotiate business dealings and supposedly to live alongside each other peaceably.

    That effectively put Maori under crown law and protection

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Maori see themselves as individuals who can claim treaty rights.

    Historically Maori were never individuals but members of the collective which always came first for the benefit of the individual,, and thats what Maori were fighting to keep,, the collective they thrived in and were protected by.

    Sort of like socialism but far stronger when blood is the major unifying
    factor

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. nih (361 comments) says:

    My definition of socialism does not favour one race over another. Maori can’t be universally in need of a foot up.

    Don’t claim tradition and cultural ties as a reason for why we have to deal with your people on a large scale either. It seems perfectly reasonable that you can maintain your culture and self-respect and still apply for various welfare and social options on an individual basis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,433 comments) says:

    Hinamanu:

    And you’ve nicely illustrated my point. If Maori see the Treaty as applying to them as a collective group, with individuals claiming rights under the Treaty, then how does that extend to those outside the group? By which I mean those who are loosely associated with Maori. So we come back to the point: it depends on whether we’re dealing with a sham marriage, and we don’t know the facts. That’s why I criticised your two earlier posts, which took the fact of marriage as decisive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. dad4justice (8,303 comments) says:

    Poor some peak oil over the stupid treaty and burn it !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    d4j,,

    no wonder you get so much hate mail (and don’t know how to block it ,lol)

    I can understand the others statements

    But you,,

    stupid does as stupid is (great Forrest Gump line and why Homer Simpson has never said it)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,433 comments) says:

    D4J:

    Adults are speaking about an important topic. Please don’t hijack this thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    ok,, d4j,

    I think we’ve finished, you can come back

    but I think you’ll be alone

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    actually,,

    just thinking about this,, I think Helen would’ve had a good laugh about this

    I can see her laughing hysterically (for her) over her morning paper.

    Hope she didn’t burn her lips on her coffee

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    Pakeha culture, of course the pakeha had
    culture that they bought with them.

    Where would we be without cricket which
    has put so much into the English langauge.

    But, some of you forget, we have grown up
    a touch, it is no surprise to see Richie
    MaCaw leading the haka now, is it.

    People we are Kiwis, Britain is no longer
    home, maybe we can take the best from
    all cultures in NZ.

    With enough inter marridge we can end
    up as Ngati Heinz 57s

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Ngati Watties would’ve been more apropriate,, when it was NZ owned

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. nih (361 comments) says:

    Ngati Fush and Chups?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    nih,,

    I ‘ve never ever heard anyone say ‘fush ahd chups’

    Only Aussies accuse us of that because they say the dreadful
    ‘feesh and cheeps’

    horrid accent to listen to during sex

    major case of shrinkage (nee Seinfeld:0 )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. nih (361 comments) says:

    I took a liking to the phrase after hearing it too many times. It may be an exaggeration, but it’s a uniquely New Zealand one.

    And now I’m hungry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. dad4justice (8,303 comments) says:

    God help New Zealand .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    I ‘ve never ever heard anyone say ‘fush ahd chups’

    Ah, but that could that be because you are listening with a uniquely Kiwi ear? To my uncultured, boer ears it sounds rather much like ‘fush and chups’ and it’s such a delightful sound off the old ear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. nih (361 comments) says:

    God help New Zealand .

    New Zealand has room for everyone, even oblivious illiterates.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    The last thing I want to sound like is a Boer

    Your older generation must find it a struggle to lose ‘kaffir’ from their vocab.

    They must sit around over drinks using the word repeatedly to fill the void.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. nih (361 comments) says:

    How refreshing, vicarious racism. Tell us all about what it’s like to imagine being a black african, hinamanu.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    nih,,

    Depends which black african you are

    Corruption comes in all colours ma friend.

    well, Robert tells us that eh,,

    say no more,,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote