Distasteful

July 15th, 2011 at 11:44 am by David Farrar

Lockwood refuses to allow Harawira to swear an oath which is illegal under the Constitution Act 1986. It was nothing to do with language – he is able to swear the oath in te reo. But he wanted to use words not allowed. he wanted to use the oath as a speech where he talks about reducing inequalities etc. That is what we have parliamentary speeches for.

Anyway, because Lockwood upheld the law, Idiot/Savant at has compared him to a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

That’s a pretty disgusting smear. It’s the extremism in politics that John Ansell was referring to. I didn’t agree with John’s ad, but I do agree you should be able to have a view that the Maori seats should be abolished, and not be called a racist.

Likewise you should be able to insist someone follows the official oath, without being compared to the KKK.

Tags: ,

94 Responses to “Distasteful”

  1. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    People like Idiot/Savant only believe the law exists to enforce their ideology.

    They imagine themselves as epaulette-adorned despots, or rulers in lands prior to common-law.

    Consequently one hand is stronger than the other, and tissues are always within reach.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. insider (990 comments) says:

    Who cares what I/S thinks? Legend in his own wholemeal organic fair trade lunchtime

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Graeme Edgeler (3,216 comments) says:

    The affirmation Hone sough to make wasn’t illegal. It just wasn’t sufficient to allow him to sit and vote in the House.

    I understand Hone wanted to make the required affirmation shortly after his statement. This was refused.

    He chose his protest, knowing the consequence. Lockwood chose to defend the dignity of the House.

    Both behaved entirely appropriately, and the actions of both yesterday are a credit to the institution. The only people who really ruined the decorum were the National MPs who wanted to ‘shame’ Hone. Are they ten-year-olds?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    There you go again – you love your smear accusations, don’t you?

    Quoting Ansell is the ultimate in self-inflicted damage!

    A member of an indigenous people who have huge objections to the execution of the terms of a treaty that ended up colonising and oppressing them objects to swearing an oath reinforcing the power of the transgressors, and he’s the distasteful one?

    That’s pretty disgusting.

    And it’s not the idea of abolishing Maori seats that is racist, it is the argument used to support that action.

    I support abolishing Maori seats, when Maori say they are no longer needed.

    I don’t think that would be labelled as racist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    > I support abolishing Maori seats, when Maori say they are no longer needed.

    Thanks for the laugh, Luc. I haven’t laughed so long and so lound for a long time. May you produce more gems in the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. queenstfarmer (696 comments) says:

    @Graeme, sure uttering the oath / affirmation itself isn’t illegal, byt Hone didn’t give the oath (or affirmation rather) in the legally prescribed form for being sworn in. That means it is an illegal oath for the purposes of being sworn in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    Luc
    So the majority of us can understand your type of reasoning can you please give your (Newspeak) definition of:
    1. Indigenous people
    2. The transgressors
    3. Racists

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    Other_Andy – Noooooooooooo…!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. NeutralObserver (91 comments) says:

    I agree with DPF in that the ability to enage in any meaningful debate (unless it appears to be the All Black Selection, Next Top Model, or what ‘auckland personality’ was caught unrinating/fondling/screwing etc…) is getting more and more constrained in NZ. Very powerful tags like racist, facist, communist etc are being bandied around with easy abandon and little thought of the consequences. Because at the end of the day words do count, they have meaning and they do have consequences. Extremists get way to much airplay, there are a number of topics on which reasonable people can disagree but short of a very few blogs it seems hard to enage in any meanginful way on tough subjects without some extremist grabbing all the oxygen. Whinge over.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Phew!

    Thank you KK.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    NO

    Kiwiblog is inhabited by extremists!

    I’m an ordinary, Kiwi, country boy moved to the big smoke, and they call me extremist!

    Go figure.

    And do visit Gotcha :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. dog_eat_dog (677 comments) says:

    Luc,

    Hone knows the rules. He got elected, and guess what – if he doesn’t like it, he can table a Private Member’s Bill to change it!

    I was happy with how it all panned out. Hone left the house, and Lockwood upheld order. But NRT shows what happens when people don’t get held to any scrutiny at all – they lose the plot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. PaulL (5,775 comments) says:

    My question is whether it’s true that Hone’s plan was to do it wrong, then do it again right. And whether that is common practice.

    If both those things are true, then it seems that Hone has been treated different, and whilst I’d disagree with IS’s tone, he may be right on the substance. If those things aren’t true, then he’s unreasonably casting racist slurs against the best speaker we’ve had in a long time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    Other_Andy – I’ll channel Luc for you…
    1. The people who lived here after the previous indigenous people were beatn’, eaten or seen retreatn’
    2. Anyone white
    3. See #2.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Graeme Edgeler (3,216 comments) says:

    That means it is an illegal oath for the purposes of being sworn in.

    1. Not illegal, just ineffective.
    2. It wasn’t for the purposes of being sworn in, it was to make a political statement before being sworn in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Other_Andy (2,079 comments) says:

    @Luc
    Please use the “sarc on” and “sarc off” quotes.
    You DID sound like one of Wussell’s ‘viva Aotearoa, down with the capitalist colonisers’ agitators.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    Funny how I/S is so willing to throw himself head first into the sewer he claims so loudly to despise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    Look, it’s arguable that Lockwood was too hard on the guy.

    But to make the jump to Lockwood being racist is way, way too far. You have to conclude that he did it because of the colour of the man’s skin, rather than the fact that he’s a nasty little extremist rat who was making a grandstand for himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    @ dog eat dog

    it’s called civil disobedience.

    You know, Ghandi, MLK, Mandela and assorted scrubbers like Kate Sheppard and Aung Sun Suu Kyi.

    Just the usual suspects.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Pete George (21,806 comments) says:

    2. It wasn’t for the purposes of being sworn in, it was to make a political statement before being sworn in.

    And probably to draw attention to a gathering and speeches outside parliamant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    I suppose I might call Hone a Languiast.

    One cannot swear allegiance to a contract or treaty or other inanimate object.

    One swears allegiance to a person or people, or the people that constitute a country or nation, or as embodied in the constitution which flows from the Crown. In this case the Oath requires the declaration of Allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors. The Treaty of Waitangi is not a constitution.

    In English, one swears to UPHOLD a treaty, or contract or agreement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. dog_eat_dog (677 comments) says:

    Luc,

    The difference is that those people often did not have any other way of changing things. As an MP, Hone can, and he will be able to once he takes the proper oath. Unless of course you’re comparing Hone’s situation to Nelson Mandela being imprisoned for decades, which is frankly ridiculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    Idiot/Savant demonstrates again why he won’t allow comments. I asked him what drugs he was on over at the standard and challenged him to post the same BS on his own blog allowing comments – he’s too scared to defend the crap he write because he knows it wouldn’t last 3 secods of robust debate.

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

    @Owen a couple of hundred million people do it every day…. “I pledge allegiance to the flag…”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    deg

    Mandela’s imprisonment was symbolic of centuries of oppression by the superior white colonisers.

    Hone’s expulsion from parliament for offering his own version of the oath of allegiance was also symbolic of a long oppression.

    Mandela could have been released whenever he chose, if he agreed to toe the government line.

    The oath for MPs and the compulsory prayer, are compelling reasons why I could entertain the idea of standing for parliament, although many have suggested I should.

    I don’t do compromise well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. PaulL (5,775 comments) says:

    To be fair burt, I think he doesn’t want to deal with the ferals any more. And I can understand that. As to why anyone would pay a lot of attention to what he says given that he doesn’t allow discussion, that’s a different question.

    His other posts on this matter were vaguely more reasonable, and he does actually have a point he’s making.

    But a KKK hat on the speaker seems a bit extreme to me, I seem to recall a lot of noise about someone photoshopping someone’s head onto a porn star (can’t remember who and how – was it James Sleep somehow?) which I’m sure IS was all over. Is a KKK hat any less offensive than a porn getup?

    Anyway, I think the real question is whether Lockwood is applying two standards. I’ve still not seen any information that confirms or denies that, because it sounds like he’d already talked to Lockwood, and indicated that he wouldn’t swear to the Queen. If that’s true, then Lockwood acted entirely appropriately. If Lockwood is applying different standards to different people (the only person impacted being brown) then that seems a bit stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    If you criticise the actions of a Maori you’re a racist.

    If you criticise the actions of an Israeli you’re an anti-semite.

    If you criticise the actions of someone with more money than you, you’re envious.

    The screaming histrionics will never stop. This is how we discuss the running of our country. Pant-pissing lunatics with the emotional maturity of 5 year olds, on all sides.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. georgebolwing (493 comments) says:

    Section 11 of the Constitution Act provides: “A member of Parliament shall not be permitted to sit or vote in the House of Representatives until that member has taken the Oath of Allegiance in the form prescribed in section 17 of the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957.”

    Standing Order 13 provides: “(1) Members who are unable to take the oath or make the affirmation at the time appointed by Standing Order 12(e) and persons becoming members of Parliament subsequent to the general election may take the oath or make affirmation by presenting themselves at the bar of the House.

    “(2) The Speaker interrupts the business as convenient and calls the member to the Table for the purpose. If this occurs during the election of the Speaker, the Clerk interrupts the proceedings for the purpose.”

    So I think it is clear that Hone was in the wrong: he is required to take the oath or make the affirmation before doing anything else, like make a speech or a pretend oath.

    Clearly a stunt designed to get maximum attention, which worked a treat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. DrDr (99 comments) says:

    I am Maori, I identify as Maori and interact with Maori in Maori environments. I am also highly educated, fully employed and a long term taxpayer. Hone in my opinion is grandstanding, he’s always been that way inclined and is normally aware of the likely consequences of his actions. So, this stunt yesterday was all about him, the Mana Party and the need to grab a headline. It was not about taking his seat in the house and representing the people who put him there. Everyday, he pulls a stunt like this he is not making a difference to improving their lives. I also believe that Lockwood Smith is very honorable and not racist. It is his job to ensure that the Parliament operates effectively and efficiently. If Hone wanted to make a speech he could have waited for his opportunity in a general debate. I don’t like people calling others racist when they are not justified in doing so. In fact Lockwood was apologetic for cutting across the waiata that followed Hone’s exit. Save the term racist for those that preach hatred, discriminate against, and abuse people on the basis of their skin colour. Lockwood does none of that. Hone will continue to pull more stunts like this and ultimately this will be his downfall, as the people who he supposedly represents realise that he is ineffective as an MP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Of course it’s grandstanding.

    He’s a politician. It’s what they do.

    But grandstanding is symbolism.

    And Lockwood is the best speaker I have ever seen.

    In terms of effective MPs, surely the consummate anti-establishment Winston Peters takes that prize when he kept tolls of the new bridge in Tauranga.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. david (2,482 comments) says:

    What sort of idiot would describe himself as a savant anyhow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. david (2,482 comments) says:

    Noun 1. idiot savant – person who is mentally retarded in general but who displays remarkable aptitude in some limited field (usually involving memory)
    simpleton, simple – a person lacking intelligence or common sense

    Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. lastmanstanding (1,154 comments) says:

    Yawn Yawn So the little Hori boy from up north got slapped down After all thats come out of his mouth attacking me and every other whitey I say good one.

    Time the little Hori boy from up north was put in his place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. gazzmaniac (2,269 comments) says:

    Just a question – why does Hone have to be sworn in again? Wasn’t he sworn in at the start of this parliament, in 2008?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Dave Mann (1,126 comments) says:

    Hone will continue to pull more stunts like this and ultimately this will be his downfall, as the people who he supposedly represents realise that he is ineffective as an MP.

    Oh I wish….. but I think he is more likely to end up as the country’s first president, more’s the pity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    ‘Distasteful’ sums up DPF’s post quite well, but ‘Disingenuous’ would be more accurate.

    Ansell and ACT collectively put out a message that suggests that any white person who is not fed up with pandering to ‘Maori Extremists’ as they label them, could be equated to being a race-traitor. Of course their desire to talk about the abolition of Maori seats is a valid point which at least can be debated, and they are entitled to make.

    But I don’t recall the furore being about that so much as about the blatant appeal to the racist sentiments of some by suggesting Maori ‘overprivilege’. It echoed the ‘IWI KIWI’ thing which reaped such great rewards for Brash first time around. But the recent advertisment by ACT was not, after all entitled ‘WHY ACT WOULD ABOLISH MAORI SEATS” was it?

    Having said that, I think the IWI KIWI was a thought-provoking and effective way to raise a debate about Moari representation especially in light of the Foreshore and Seabed issue. (So effective in fact that Labour felt obliged to plunder us of our constitutional rights under the EFB in order to make sure it would never happen again).

    But for David to claim that ACT engaged in a rather thought-provoking bit of debating about Moari seats, while he condemns No Right Turn’s rabidity is just daft, as it makes it look like he is minimising the racist intention of ACT’s gambit, to make them look like the unwitting victims of some kind of politically-correct backlash against their reasonable desire to debate Moari seats.

    But then he goes on to say that he would condone having a debate about the abolition of Maori seats, but condemn the ‘Ku Klux Klan’ reference. Would you condemn ACT labelling people ‘Race traitors’ or accusing them of ‘pandering’ to Maori? ‘Race-traitor’ or ‘KKK’ it’s all the same to me – nasty divisive attempt to inflame racial tensions.

    Or are you retrospectively cherry-picking ideas to erect an argument that is at odds with the facts? Why? Unless you are running some kind of bizarre campaign using your blog to minimise up ACT’s recent indiscretions or seeking to defend the indefensible?

    Which, of course, is not the same as ‘dogwhistling’, because as you yourself pointed out recently, that is not the kind of subtle playing with words that you would ever engage in, DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. DJP6-25 (1,229 comments) says:

    Reason #959 to abolish Maori seats, and all the other abhorrent institutional racisim on the law books. Aside from the Maori seats, which date from the 19th century; the othetr stuff was passed by the two socialist parties, National and labour. Socialists only oppose racisim when it’s the wrong kind. If it advances their cause, they don’t mind. Reason #958 to detest socialisim.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Brian Smaller (3,915 comments) says:

    Here is a reason to abolish the Maori seats. We have universal suffrage in NZ and there is no property qualification any more. Hence, the Maori seats entire reason for existing in the first place has been gone for over a hundred years. They are an historical anachronism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. PaulL (5,775 comments) says:

    Lee C: Don’t disagree with your content. But a couple of nits to pick.

    1. Did ACT describe anyone as a race-traitor in their ad? That sounds like a creation of the echo chamber. I’m reacting here to the quotes which make me think you are suggesting this is a quote – is that correct?
    2. How can you say that the intent of ACTs ads was to be racist? Do you know that is their intent? I generally think it unlikely that any NZ political party has a racist intent, you may interpret what they do as being racist, but it doesn’t mean they intended it that way.

    I’m wondering from your comment whether you’re conflating John Ansell’s weird comments with ACT’s campaign. If so, then I think DPF did already condemn that as being nutjob stuff, so he’d be entirely consistent in now condemning IS.

    Finally, on the title Idiot/Savant. IS has been using this for years, it’s now more a name than a label. I’d guess he got it when he was younger and thought it funny, and hasn’t changed his handle as that would confuse lots of people. Message is to be careful what handle you choose when you’re young – you never get to change it!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. David Garrett (5,131 comments) says:

    Many have condemned Brash’s comments about “the Maorification of everything”… but think about it….lengthy waiata now break out every time there is another concession in the House to Maori…they are sung in a language understood by perhaps 10% of the House. Yes, Maori is an official language.

    If members of a support group – oh, lets say the Sensible Sentencing Trust – had begun singing “Land of Hope and Glory” after my maiden speech – or after any maiden speech by a non-Maori member – does anything think the Speaker would have put up with it? He puts up with unauthorized singing of waiata because he is frightened that if he protests, he will be called a racist…he was called one yesterday after resisting the racist clown’s latest attention grabbing stunt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    I hear you Paul

    No ACT did not do that – but I’m taking Ansell nutjobbery as a whole concerted piece of mischief, in a similar way DPF hasn’t divorced NRT’s nonsense from the ad. So sauce for the goose and all that. . .

    Besides, are we really to swallow Ansell the ‘lone gunman’ theory here? – this particular smoking gun has Brash’s fingerprints all over it.

    It is a fair point – that DPF did condemn Ansell’s nutjobbery, but also described what I consider ACT’s cynical attempt at fanning racial intolerance as – wait for it – ‘ACT’s Angst’?!?

    ANGST? – are you kiddin’ me? Like describing Freddy Mercury as ‘Bi-curious’.

    But we are still looking at comparing apples with apples. DPF was at liberty to draw a valid comparison with Ansell and NRT but chose rather to try and downplay ACT’s skullduggery.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Scott Hamilton (235 comments) says:

    Do you oppose Maori being an official language, David? I would have thought that the Maori Language Act was one piece of legislation that would have become uncontroversial by now…

    [DPF: Can you not read English? I have never opposed Maori being an offical language, or peoples right to use it]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. mikenmild (8,798 comments) says:

    David Garrett

    Possibly the Speaker would have followed the procedure set out in Standing Orders and Speaker’s Rulings. Presumably the waiata was authorised in advance as required.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Scott Hamilton (235 comments) says:

    Lee, Ansell is sailing pretty close to the wind in terms of some of the arguments he’s making lately. He’s been defending the ‘Celtic NZ’ thesis, for example, which is the work of a couple of self-confessed Holocaust deniers with connections to neo-Nazism, Martin Doutre and Kerry Bolton:
    http://readingthemaps.blogspot.com/2011/07/browns-reds-and-rednecks-meaning-of.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. PaulL (5,775 comments) says:

    David: a waiata is actually cultural, I don’t have too much objection to a waiata so long as it’s appropriate and short. That’s how things are done on a marae, and it’s kind of NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. GPT1 (2,042 comments) says:

    As you say a disgraceful smear. I/s has let himself down, again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. kowtow (6,701 comments) says:

    I support abolishing all references to the treaty.
    It was done before and can be done again.
    It’s resusitation has brought nothing but dissention,conflict and revenue transfer to a Maori elite.
    Time for a referendum (all of which should be binding) Thanks National for disempowering the people of this once proud democracywith your CIRs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. David Garrett (5,131 comments) says:

    Scott H: No, I have to problem at all with Maori being an official language…in fact its completely appropriate.

    Singing waiata in the House is supposed to be cleared with the Speaker in advance, but I am told sometimes it’s not…clearly yesterday’s wasnt because he apparently called several times for them to desist but was ignored.

    My point is simply ACTs: the rules must be the same for everyone. They aren’t. And its been said 1000 times here and elsewhere….anyone who set up the “Promotion of European Values” party would be hounded endlessly, but the Maori Party is just peachy…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. mikenmild (8,798 comments) says:

    We already have several promotion of European values parties – ACT, National, Labour…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. David Garrett (5,131 comments) says:

    Really? Find me a reference in the constitution of any of those parties to advancing the interests of one racial group….

    Shane Jones and that enormous chap who sits on their front bench would be very interested to hear that Labour was about promoting European interests..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Pete George (21,806 comments) says:

    anyone who set up the “Promotion of European Values” party would be hounded endlessly

    “European” is not “one racial group”.

    A party like this?
    Kiwi Party A revival of the Christian Democrats / Future New Zealand brand. The party advocates more representative direct democracy through referenda and a return to the “Judeo-Christian ethic in democracy”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. mikenmild (8,798 comments) says:

    We don’t have a party explicitly to promote European values because that’s part of what the main parties already do. Those who feel their values are sidelined establish other groups, eg Maori, Greens, which have distinctly different mindsets from other political parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. simonway (356 comments) says:

    Here’s Hone doing the same thing in 2008. For everybody who doesn’t understand:

    Hone planned to deliver a short little affirmation that he wrote himself that reflects his values. After doing this, he would recite the official, legally required affirmation. This is what he has done after the past two elections, and several other MPs have done similar things. This is entirely legal, and does involve making the legally required oath or affirmation.

    Lockwood decided to interrupt Hone in the middle of this process, and eject him from the House, despite the fact that what Hone was doing was entirely legal (not to mention fairly common). He singled out Hone and barred him from doing what everybody else is allowed to do. Why? Does he have a personal vendetta against Hone? Does he not like the man’s pro-Maori politics? Does the idea of promising to uphold the Treaty offend him? Whatever it is, it’s entirely inappropriate behaviour for the Speaker.

    [DPF: Lockwood wasn't Speaker then. Lockwood has made numerous changes to past practice, to improve the dignity of Parliament. Such as discouraging tabling of documents already publicly available. He obviously thinks MPs using the oath swearing as an opportunity to politically grandstand is one of those areas needing improvement. And I agree - it is a puerile act that should be stamped out]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Pete George (21,806 comments) says:

    simonway, the fact there was a large group waiting outside parliament for photops and speeches suggests what happened inside wasn’t entirely unexpected. One thing Harawira knows very well how to do and that’s attract attention.

    But what happened inside did seem a bit odd.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. simonway (356 comments) says:

    Their MP had just been elected and it was his first day in Parliament (kind of). Honestly, it seems reasonable to me that people would want to show up to support him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Steve (4,321 comments) says:

    Hone Harawira = Walking Eagle.

    There is a story about that name, but I can not find it right now

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Steve (4,321 comments) says:

    On a recent trip to the U.S.A. Hone Harawira was invited
    to address a major gathering of the American Indian Nations
    in Kitimat, B.C. due to his experiences in handling the New Zealand Indigineous situation in New Zealand

    He spoke for almost an hour on his ideas for increasing
    every First Nation’s present standard of living.

    At the conclusion of his speech, the tribes presented Hone
    with a plaque inscribed with his new Indian name – Walking Eagle.

    The proud Hone then departed with his entourage, waving to
    the crowd as he left. A news reporter later asked the chiefs how they came to
    select the new name given to Hone. They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a
    bird so full of shit, it can no longer fly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Fletch (5,721 comments) says:

    Smearing someone by calling them racist is just one of the tricks of the Left.
    It’s following Alinksy’s Rule No 12 –

    RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

    You can see Obama use this rule all the time…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Hone can’t buy publicity… no war chest.

    So

    He is being very clever keeping himself in the spot light , just little actions, nothing to over the top .. for free.

    The media and blogs are campaigning for him…… for free.

    His supporters are getting information regarding his aims….. for free.

    He is being a bloody sight sharper than others at the moment, no ads or anything ….. for free

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Fox (182 comments) says:

    I suppose I/S can be expecting a letter from the National Party shortly, thanking him for demonstrating yet again to middle New Zealand, just how warped and outlandish the views of the Left in this country have become.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Paul Marsden (935 comments) says:

    Hone might be an arrogant SOB that most NZ’rs despise (and with good cause), but he’s not stupid. It was a ‘set-up’ plain and simple….the kind of publicity that money can’t buy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. CharlieBrown (789 comments) says:

    Well isn’t it funny – Hone is a Socialist, and a maori nationalist… so hes a maori national socialist….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Scares the hell out of me
    If the fellers get smart they could vote “mana” at home Maori Party everywhere else and “mana” for party
    How much of a leaver would this give
    Mind you Act and National

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    Strange, Smith like other National MPs speaks sod all reo so how the hell did he know that Hone was not reciting the oath ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    GOH – watch the beginning of the clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uayzmPdXH4

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Alan Wilkinson (1,798 comments) says:

    I don’t have much time for Hone but I have even less time for oaths of allegiance. Pretentious archaic crap IMHO.

    His electorate elected him to Parliament and no-one else has the right to stop him attending it. The oath law is basically unconstitutional as it frustrates the legitimate will of the people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. James (1,338 comments) says:

    For the last few days I had been wondering about the claims made against Ansell and ACT that they were being racist in that ad.I compared that to what would be the case if say the Maori party ran an ad attacking the views of Kyle Chapman and his mates.If criticised for making race based,anti-European attacks on Chapman et el the Maori party would rightly say No..they were attacking the radicalism of the guy…not his race.Ansell and ACT can make the exact same point re their ad…it was attacking the radicalism of some Maori people..not the Maori race itself…which it wasn’t so isn’t therefore racist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Alan Wilkinson (1,798 comments) says:

    Just to demonstrate the utter pointless absurdity and futility of the oath, contemplate Parliament swearing ” I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law” – and then voting to make New Zealand a republic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    I am surprised to hear that Hone doesn’t like to swear ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Alan Wilkinson (1,798 comments) says:

    Rodders, that’s hardly fair – he wanted to swear much more than Lockwood wanted to allow.

    As for DPF’s theory about stamping out a puerile practice, I suspect the publicity will merely encourage it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Ansell scorned “white cowardice” in the context of Europeans being too scared to rise a voice in protest to the rampant Maorification in NZ (which Hone and co have very timely proved exists in spite of bullshit liberal hand-wringing claims to the contrary) because they would be hounded as racists for doing so. Only when enough people heed Ansells words and stop silently submitting to the shit will things change for the better for all Kiwis.”All that evil requires to prosper is for good men to do nothing”…John Ansell is a good man and is doing something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. reid (15,531 comments) says:

    Scares the hell out of me

    Why?

    A Maori terrorist group in NZ would never survive past the first atrocity. No-one would harbour them, they would have nowhere to hide.

    They just wouldn’t, if something like that really happened.

    The real danger is the repressed rage he exudes. That’s his appeal and a threat to common-sense, decency and the British way of life which all of us so enjoy.

    Therefore I suggest we campaign to hate Hone precisely as much he hates us. I feel this will balance the currently imbalanced zen harmony that must be kept in balance lest the Earth crack apart like an egg, which I’m quite worried about with Hone’s latest move.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Alan – I was alluding to Hone’s fondness for expletives ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Alan Wilkinson (1,798 comments) says:

    Rodders, I know. I was just pulling your leg.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    The momentum of the ‘Treaty Principle’s’ movement continues on the back of a revisionists history, propagated by a left wing looney minority. Look how skewed the thinking is by all its proponents
    Our nation is one of the must enlightened in the world in governance freedom honesty quality of life etc etc etc it has MANA on the World stage the loony left seek to destroy that and substitute tribal anarchy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    A Maori terrorist group in NZ would never survive past the first atrocity. No-one would harbour them, they would have nowhere to hide.

    I call Bullshit on that. There is clear evidence that the Urewera lot were buying weapons (trade me purchases) and one of them went on Close Up and was quite happy to talk about them doing “protection” drills. Yet they’ve got immense sympathy from the radical left.

    One could argue that they haven’t committed an atrocity. But I would point to the whitewashing from their current supporters and ask you if you seriously think these people couldn’t come up with some sort way of excusing it? (Then look at 9/11 and how so many of them think it was all Bush’s doing.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    In the Southside The Drums were rumbling that recruitment was going on to form a Militia and that para military training was being undertaken
    It took a while for them to get hassled but the Law stilled fumbled.fail
    At least The State gave these yobbos a good scare and has yet not fully martyred them

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. hj (5,692 comments) says:

    Bottom line radical Maori are outnumbered (and cross pollinated).

    “With the recent announcement of the Fijian Government to give ownership of its coastal areas to indigenous tribes, it would be ideal to hope that this could offer some support to Maori arguments by is unlikely to have any effect here.

    “I completely support and endorse what the Fijian Government has done*. They’ve taken an initiative that this Government needs to follow. That unfortunately is not the case with the Government here; the indigenous Fijians are the majority and are in Government where as we are not,” Hingston said.
    http://www.kahungunu.iwi.nz/…/FIGHTINGTALKONFORESHOREHingstonTalk.doc
    FIGHTING TALK ON FORESHORE
    By Kui Paki – Tu Mai February 04 – An interview with Judge Ken Heta Hingston

    *I don’t think many Fijian Indians would be Green voters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. hj (5,692 comments) says:

    A Maori terrorist group in NZ would never survive past the first atrocity. No-one would harbour them, they would have nowhere to hide.
    ………
    I agree, they would need popular support from an ethnically mixed population plus a large area to hide. In addition the cultural Edin is a myth. Historians have been too soft on Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. pq (728 comments) says:

    Lockwood Smith has been a remarkable
    Parliamentary speaker firm and even

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Lockwood Smith has been a remarkable
    Parliamentary speaker firm and even…

    Like tits should be. lol

    ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Spiritfree (79 comments) says:

    I just wanted to restate this post br DrDr (above), as it puts paid to all those idiots who think that criticising Hone’s actions is tantamount to racism or (as per Luc) disgusting. A brilliant post, I wish it could be in billboards all around the country. Particularly Kaitaia.

    So here it is, in full.

    I am Maori, I identify as Maori and interact with Maori in Maori environments. I am also highly educated, fully employed and a long term taxpayer. Hone in my opinion is grandstanding, he’s always been that way inclined and is normally aware of the likely consequences of his actions. So, this stunt yesterday was all about him, the Mana Party and the need to grab a headline. It was not about taking his seat in the house and representing the people who put him there. Everyday, he pulls a stunt like this he is not making a difference to improving their lives. I also believe that Lockwood Smith is very honorable and not racist. It is his job to ensure that the Parliament operates effectively and efficiently. If Hone wanted to make a speech he could have waited for his opportunity in a general debate. I don’t like people calling others racist when they are not justified in doing so. In fact Lockwood was apologetic for cutting across the waiata that followed Hone’s exit. Save the term racist for those that preach hatred, discriminate against, and abuse people on the basis of their skin colour. Lockwood does none of that. Hone will continue to pull more stunts like this and ultimately this will be his downfall, as the people who he supposedly represents realise that he is ineffective as an MP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. John Ansell (861 comments) says:

    I would appreciate it if those who attack me could point to one statement that I have made that is not true.

    Lee C is the second person to lie about me using the expression ‘race traitor’. The first was none other than David Farrar in a grossly misleading interview on National Radio about a Coastal Coalition ad.

    I do not take kindly to being lied about and intend to sue the next person who brands me a racist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    May I please place on record that I don’t think criticism of Hone’s actions amounts to racism, per se.

    It depends on the terms used.

    Neither do I think Lockwood Smith is in the least racist.

    But the rules he is required to enforce do not take into account the feelings, the mana, of those who consider themselves wronged by events subsequent to the treaty.

    I am sorry to say this John, but much of what you write does brand you as racist.

    I understand why you think the way you do because I used to think just the same.

    I became enlightened.

    Perhaps if you sue me you, too, may be enlightened.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. John Ansell (861 comments) says:

    Luc, I take care to stick to the truth.

    I tell that truth as boldly as I know how, using the Anglo-Saxon part of the language (or should I say Old English, lest you consider the very mention of Anglo-Saxon as racist) rather than the Franco-Latin.

    For that, my truths are regarded by exaggeraters like you as hate crimes. In fact, if they are crimes at all, they should be called truth crimes.

    It has become a crime in this dishonest country to tell the truth.

    I ask again, Luc: which of the 30 statements I made in that ad http://johnansell.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/unfreedom-pc-paper-denies-wellingtonian-voters-access-to-act-policy/, and the several I made subsequently, were not true?

    I think if you review those statements, you’ll find that every single one of them was 100% true.

    As shocking as it may sound to your tender Marxist ears, it is perfectly true that Maori have gone from the stone age to the space age in 150 years,

    And it is perfectly true, as far as I know, that none of their leaders has ever said thanks.

    I’m pleased you have added yourself to my list of candidates to sue. A man who holds the world’s record for successful libel actions has suggested an excellent barrister.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Pete George (21,806 comments) says:

    “I think if you review those statements, you’ll find that every single one of them was 100% true. ”

    “And it is perfectly true, as far as I know, that none of their leaders has ever said thanks.”

    John, have a wee think about those statements.

    If someone said it is perfectly true, as far as they knew, you were a racist, would that excuse them from your sue list?

    If you were being perfectly honest you would just say that you didn’t know if any leaders had said thanks.

    You are exaggerating racial issues by the way you say things. I’ve got no idea if that qualifies you as a racist or not, but your language is obviously easily perceived as racist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. mikenmild (8,798 comments) says:

    Didn’t that ad say something about forcing teachers to learn te reo? And should Maori say thanks for everything, or just things that might be useful?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Pete George (21,806 comments) says:

    John, looking at your preferred advert, the first bulleted points:

    - Broken their promise to scrap the race based seats.
    I thought they had said they would look at it after the treaty claims had been dealt with, that takes until 2014, so they can’t have broken the promise yet?

    - Passed the act to “make it much easier for the Maori Party’s mates to claim our coastal riches”

    - Foisted on Auckland an unelected Maori Board
    What was the Act Party’s involvement?
    If you new the truth 100% you would know which mates specifically?
    And how much easier? From what I’ve read it is still very difficult.

    - Ratified the UN Declaration
    I thought that declarations weren’t something that were ratified. Are you 100% sure of this?

    - Force upon upon the people of Whanganu/Wanganui the spelling
    That they can choose for themselves. So not forced.

    Your 100% truth looks a bit dodgy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. John Ansell (861 comments) says:

    Pete:

    1. National certainly did promise to abolish the Maori seats. Are you saying National voters in 2008 voted for Key to form an alliance with the racist Maori Party that could result in the alienation of New Zealand’s coastline?

    2. Are you seriously suggesting that Key still intends to abolish the Maori seats?

    3. By lowering the bar to iwi claims to the foreshore and seabed (sorry, the ‘marine and coastal area’) by allowing direct negotiation with patsy ministers like Chris Finlayson, does that not make it much easier for the Maori Party’s mates to claim the coastal riches? Which mates? The iwi aristocracy and their lawyers.

    4. The old ACT Party’s involvement in the foisting was reprehensible and inexcusable. Hide was used by Key as his fall guy for an unpopular policy. Very dumb, and why Rodney had to be relieved of the leadership.

    5. What was Pita Sharples doing on his trip to the UN if he wasn’t ratifying the UN Declaration?

    6. The people of Wanganui have the H forced upon them by every organisation that chooses to use it. I note that TV One initially chose the H for their weather map, then changed back. I wonder why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. mikenmild (8,798 comments) says:

    NZ has endorsed the declaration. Ratification requires incorporation by NZ legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Pete George (21,806 comments) says:

    John, your 100% factual is looking as holey as Labour’s CGT. You’ve admitted uncertainties just on those.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. mikenmild (8,798 comments) says:

    I think Ansell’s given up on defending this nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. John Ansell (861 comments) says:

    Endorse, ratify… I apologise for the slight error. But it was very slight. The endorsement will be used by the Maoristocracy to hammer the government into submission on every Maorification issue. That’s the point.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.