The treatygate campaign

August 14th, 2012 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

John Ansell has blogged on the treatygate campaign, as reported yesterday by Critic. His plan is:

  1. Launch Colourblind New Zealand, and set a goal to lock in one law for all by December 2014.
  2. Raise a $2 million fighting fund so the politicians know we’re able to embarrass them.
  3. Petition for a referendum at the 2014 election. Question: “Do you want New Zealand to be a Colourblind State, with one law for all, and no racial favouritism of any kind?”
  4. How to make the PM obey the referendum result? Run lots of bold Treatygate ads telling voters just who has been conning them, and how.
  5. If media refuse to run these ads, use rival media to expose them as part of the con.
  6. Bombard government MPs with instructions from their voters to obey their will.
  7. Support local body campaigns on wards (typically attracting an 80% NO vote).

For my 2c I have long said I think NZ would be better off without the Maori parliamentary seats, and that having race based seats on local bodies is definitely not heading in the right direction..

However I differ from John in terms of how I view the . I think the settlement of historical grievances is a very good thing, and I do not have a problem with the having legal recognition – but the Treaty itself, not the more nebulous “principles”.

Also while I think NZ would be better off without the Maori seats (race based seats can only be divisive in the long run), I don’t think it is wise for the majority to remove something which has taken on huge significance with many Maori. The majority of New Zealanders who are of Maori descent have chosen to enrol on the Maori roll, which is significant. This may be partly tactical of course though.

So my preference is to convince Maori that they would be better off to do away with the Maori seats, and instead implement what the 1986 Royal Commission implemented of no threshold for Maori parties contesting the party vote. That of course is not entirely colour-blind – but I think both a better solution for Maori, and a less divisive one for New Zealand.

Tags: , ,

109 Responses to “The treatygate campaign”

  1. alex (298 comments) says:

    That solution on Maori seats is a terrible one, what constitutes a Maori party? Does Mana, who have two Maori and two Pakeha in their top four? How about the Greens, who have 1 Maori co-leader? How about Labour, who regularly win Maori seats? Or New Zealand First, who claim to represent both Maori and Pakeha? Far better to stick with what we currently have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    bugger divisive.
    It is racist, simple and true and has no place in NZ.

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

    Race based seats in parliament bad,race based seats on local council good?

    Sounds a bit like Animal Farm.

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

    Yes DPF, what’s with the race based local bodies seats, how do you justify that?

    [DPF: I don't - I am against them]

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

    my preference is to … instead implement what the 1986 Royal Commission implemented of no threshold for Maori parties contesting the party vote.

    Please define “Maori parties” in this context.

    [DPF: A party whose party list is solely comprised of electors who are registered as being of Maori descent]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. grumpy (226 comments) says:

    DPF

    ….I don’t think you have thought this one through……..

    Please do better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. dubya (200 comments) says:

    Any form of race-based representation is wrong. If some Maori believe they are entitled to more, they are wrong, should be told as such, and should not be appeased with soft-cock, guilt ridden compromises like those DPF suggests. One man, one vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. john.bt (170 comments) says:

    The Maori seats in parliament were set up at a time when only men who owned property could vote. Because Maori land was mostly communily owned the government set up the separate Maori seats to give them representation. I believe this is now an anachronism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Cunningham (746 comments) says:

    ‘instead implement what the 1986 Royal Commission implemented of no threshold for Maori parties contesting the party vote’ Why???? What possible reason could there be to give maori representation a hand up. They have the opportunity to run in an election just the same as a chinese based party or a Pacific Island party. Can’t they just run on their own merits rather then relying on some rules to give them an advantage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. James Stephenson (1,885 comments) says:

    I like Ele at Homepaddock’s stance on this, drop the seat threshold and increase the membership threshold to qualify as a political party. If you can’t get 500 natural persons as members, you’re not a political party, you’re a pressure group.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Wait, are we allowed to just add “-gate” to any word now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    Good point Ryan
    I always thought they were for govt corruption or for Helun.

    oh my bad,
    institutionalised racism is bad isn’t it :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. emmess (1,333 comments) says:

    David-Farrar-apparently-supports-Local-Body-Maori-Seats-because-he-forgot-to-type-not-gate

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Mr Elbow (30 comments) says:

    Points four and five show John hasn’t learned a thing. You can’t just win people over with a bunch of ads, especially with the inflammatory stuff he comes up with.
    His solution to everything: “run an ad! They’re part of the Con! We must bombard the public with the Truth!”

    There are legitimate gripes to be discussed, but John Ansell is entirely the wrong messenger.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. dime (8,752 comments) says:

    “I don’t think it is wise for the majority to remove something which has taken on huge significance with many Maori. ”

    pretty sure water has taken on huge significance with a few white fellas too… and samoans, tongons, asians etc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. 103PapPap (116 comments) says:

    Why don’t we change the qualification for being a Maori – you must prove 51% pure Maori breeding to be called a Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. dime (8,752 comments) says:

    I dont see enough guilt coming from people that are half maori. they take with their entire being. never any “im sorry guys cause we won the war but let you live anyway”

    and the maori side is never “thank fuck the dutch didnt colonise NZ”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Mr Nobody NZ (396 comments) says:

    “my preference is to convince Maori that they would be better off to do away with the Maori seats”

    Why do that, lets convince Non-Maori how much better off they would be by enrolling on the Maori Electoral Roll?

    It seems a far easier approach unless of course Maori want to set a biological/genetic measure to what it is to Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. rg (190 comments) says:

    There is only one party in parliament that is oppposed to racism and supports equality under the law, and that is ACT.
    You want to convince Maori to give up their special privilege, good luck with that.
    Droping the threshold for Maori seats and not general seats is racist, as is Maori special tax rate, maori getting into med school with lower marks.
    If Maori want to be judged by the colour of their skin rather than the content of their skin then so be it, but they can’t then claim equality in areas where they don’t want to be so judged such as employment, chosing a tenent, etc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Lipo (226 comments) says:

    After reading yesterdays posts about the legitimacy of the Littlewood document I did educate myself a little on the Treaty of Waitangi
    Some interesting points I did not know
    1. There is no “one founding document” such as the Declaration of Independence. There are in fact numerous versions each with slightly different texts circulating. Each Treaty of Waitangi document differs slightly
    2. Most Maori signed a copied English Language version but never a Maori version
    3. There is no agreement on the correct translation of the Maori version back to into English
    4. The original draft of the English Language version that the Maori version is based on is missing

    Question
    1. How can a document with so many versions become a Legal Document?
    2. When the Waitangi Tribunal hears cases of treaty grievances which treaty do they refer to when making a judgement. The one many Maori signed at Waitangi or if from the Waikato, the version signed there?
    3. How did Tohue make a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal when they never signed it?

    I do not make any judgment on the above but question whether a document that seems very abstract and open to all sorts of interpretations should be used as a basis for settling claims on New Zealand’s assets such as Deep Sea fishing, Water rights and ownership, Radio Spectrum and push towards “Partnership”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Daigotsu (446 comments) says:

    The recommendation re: removing the threshold for “Maori” parties was dismissed precisely because it was impossible to think of a workable definition.

    By the definition DPF has suggested there are no Maori parties in Parliament at present (even The Maori Party has some pakeha on its party list)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. john.bt (170 comments) says:

    I do wonder how many Maori find it demeaning that they are not considered competent enough to get elected in the same way as the rest of the population without having separatism imposed on them.

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

    dubya (101) Says:
    August 14th, 2012 at 11:40 am

    Any form of race-based representation is wrong. If some Maori believe they are entitled to more, they are wrong, should be told as such, and should not be appeased with soft-cock, guilt ridden compromises like those DPF suggests. One man, one vote.

    john.bt (156) Says:
    August 14th, 2012 at 11:42 am

    The Maori seats in parliament were set up at a time when only men who owned property could vote. Because Maori land was mostly communily owned the government set up the separate Maori seats to give them representation. I believe this is now an anachronism.

    LOL what?

    The Maori seats were set up because in early times the Maori population outnumbered Whitey massively, and having all Maoris voting for just a handful of “Maori seats” was a good way of keeping the natives relatively unenfranchised.

    Today a Maori electorate is the same size as a general one… and given we use an MMP system of party voting, I don’t really see how a Maori gets any more voting “power” than a Whitey?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Martin Gibson (206 comments) says:

    I believe that race should join religion in the “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” equation.

    All race-based policy/politics does is put stress on those who have too little Maori ancestry to get a tan, causing them to colour in their chins and arms and get all radical to show whose side they’re on, using the intensity of their hatred as a membership card.

    The various runanga could be the voice of Maori should such a thing be needed, although most Maori problems could be solved by attention to Maslow’s heirachy of needs which applies to all humans.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (6,478 comments) says:

    “I don’t think it is wise for the majority to remove something which has taken on huge significance with many Maori.”

    How about something that has huge significance to Christians and Conservatives?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. James Stephenson (1,885 comments) says:

    LOL what?

    The Maori seats were set up because in early times the Maori population outnumbered Whitey massively, and having all Maoris voting for just a handful of “Maori seats” was a good way of keeping the natives relatively unenfranchised.

    john.bt is correct, Maori seats were set up to get around the land-owning qualification. The driver for giving them the franchise was to add their voting power to a North Island worried about the population growth in the South Island altering the balance of power in that direction. (According to John Tamihere anyway)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Shazzadude (467 comments) says:

    “Why don’t we change the qualification for being a Maori – you must prove 51% pure Maori breeding to be called a Maori.”

    Why are Pakeha so obsessed with quotients and percentages in regards to ethnicity?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Paulus (2,296 comments) says:

    If Tainui and NgaiTahu paid tax like every body else it would give them a right to representation.

    Total Maori assets estimated at $48,000,000,000. Is any taxed – are ALL the recipients Charities.

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

    David, I do support the Treaty of Waitangi – the Maori version, translated almost word-for-word from Hobson’s final draft which was discovered in 1989 at the home of Beryl and John Littlewood and shamefully minimised by Treatygater historians like Claudia Orange and Paul Moon.

    Moon claims the Littlewood document can’t be a Treaty because it wasn’t signed by any chiefs.

    But why would any chief sign a draft (meant only for the translator)??

    This is the sort of flimsy logic that passes for scholarship in this country.

    I’ve just come back from being interrogated by the equally illogical Tini Molyneux (Tuhoe cousin of Tame Iti) for tonight’s Te Karere on TV One.

    I don’t know she’ll manage to edit me to her advantage, but here are a few things you probably won’t see:

    1. Me pulling out of my coat a blown-up photo of the definition of ‘taonga’ from the dictionary current in 1840 (linguistic consultant Hongi Hika). I asked her to read what it said. She sheepishly recited: “taonga – property procured by the spear.” I asked her how you can spear water and radio waves. Then she blithered on about how anyone can provide examples of anything. I said, “No – this is evidence that the whole basis of the Treaty Grievance Industry is based on a fraudulent definition.” “I don’t want to talk about that any more, let’s talk about…”

    2. My attack on the ethics of Tariana Turia lying about ‘holocausts’ in Taranaki. I recited the several Maori atrocities worthy of the name, including the killing of one third of the Taranaki population (and enslavement of another third) by the Waikatos, the ethnic cleansing of the Moriori by the remnants of the third of the Taranakis who fled the Waikatos, and the unprovoked butchering of numerous settler families. And Turia has the gall to call Parihaka a holocaust when the death toll was precisely ZERO.

    3. Her asking me: “How can you say you speak for 80% of the public (I’d cited five surveys where 80% of the public voted against racial privilege) when I looked on your blog and you only have ten followers? I wasn’t letting her get away with that. “You’re referring to the number of comments (now 29). Yesterday I got 1100 visits, the most since my first day of blogging in 2008.” “Ah so you’re only speaking for 1000 people.” “It’s only Day 1, give me a break! You’re saying that unless I get 3 million visits to my blog, I can’t be voicing the concerns of a large number of New Zealanders?”

    And so it went, Tini flapping and wriggling like a hooked fish whenever I mentioned some hard evidence that didn’t suit the Tuhoe/Te Karere agenda.

    Most telling for me was when she challenged me to name one Maori who represented what I call ‘Achiever Maori’ and share my desire for a Colourblind State.

    I mentioned a very fine, courageous and gentle man who has become my friend, Hari Rapata. Hari stood up to the Popata brothers at Waitangi when they were leading a march to tear down the NZ flag and hoist the separatist flag.

    “Oh the Rapatas!” echoed Tini and her assistant, “that says it all”.

    Now Hari descends from the warrior chief Rewi Maniopoto and is almost a full-blooded Maori, though grew up in the South Island away from Greiver politics. He and I were going to campaign together for a Colourblind State, but he doesn’t share my appetite for the Treatygate side (which I think is crucial, since the Grievers are profiting from lying about the past).

    But to see the contempt of these state-paid television reporters at the very mention of his name told me all I needed to know about the agenda of state-funded racist TV.

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

    RRM you are totally wrong. What John.BT says about why the maori seats were set up is the truth. The absolute truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. fish_boy (152 comments) says:

    And next week folks we can all look forward to when John Ansell will post a long article by his friend Mar­tin Doutré proving the Celts were the first to discover New Zealand, long before the Maori.

    Because yes, he really is that bat shit insane.

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

    brenda(1)

    Welcome to kiwiblog,for a debut that’s excellent…..RRM,totally wrong!hahahahaah

    You’ll find that about ,possibly, everything RRM says.

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

    It’s just easier to play the man isn’t it fish_boy?

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

    I think the settlement of historical grievances is a very good thing

    I think the concept of settlement is a pipe dream. 

    We have a racial death spiral of perceived grievance, leading to perceived entitlement, leading to actual payment (not settlement), leading to further perceived grievance… and so on.

    Any NZers who have the fortitude to point this out are branded raaaaaaaacisssssssts!

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

    RRM (5,166) Says:
    August 14th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
    Today a Maori electorate is the same size as a general one… and given we use an MMP system of party voting, I don’t really see how a Maori gets any more voting “power” than a Whitey?

    Given we use an MMP system of party voting, I don’t really see how abolishing race-based seats diminishes Maori voting power?

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

    It would be bloody great if we could lock the extremists (Toad, fishboy and Redbaiter as examples) in a room and let the rest of us have a rational debate about the points raised by Mr Ansell.

    I have no doubt that we have been force fed the liberal version of the treaty and I have no doubt that some people in very high places are guilty of rewriting history in an attempt to make excuses for Maori failure.

    What we all need is the truth, I suspect it is as usual, somewhere in the middle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. fish_boy (152 comments) says:

    “…It’s just easier to play the man isn’t it fish_boy..?”

    The guy is a paranoid peddler of crackpot conspiracy theories based on half truths and downright lies. He belongs in a secure institution, preferably one where he can’t stir up race hate on the internet.

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

    Is he suggesting that you wimpy pakeha ethnic cleanse NZ of Maori ?
    That is as funny as fuck.

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

    nonpartisan
    fish is right. You only have to follow the link to Ansell’s post where he claims:

    ’14.Pretend that Maori are indigenous to New Zealand, when they sailed here just before the Europeans, and suppress the mounting evidence that other races got here first.’

    So yes, that is insane.

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

    @Brenda

    The truth?
    RRM can’t handle the truth when it doesn’t fit the narrative.

    john.bt was absolutely right. In New Zealand the right to vote or ‘franchise’ was defined according to sex, age, nationality and the possession of property. Most Maori (through the Maori seats) has a vote long before most Europeans had a vote. But that doesn’t fit well with the black-and-white crowd that insist that Maori were always the victim and the others were always the oppressors.
    The real victims of discrimination were the Chinese who weren’t allowed to vote until 1952!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Cunningham (746 comments) says:

    fish_boy (110) it’s to easy to brand someone insane or racist. You might not agree with what he says but he raises some points which I think you will find alot of kiwis agree with. Of course he will get named every single word in the book (including of course racist) because people such as yourself are not confortable debating any of the points he makes. Some Maori will do anything to keep the treaty settlement process going forever because they stand to gain from it. It NEEDS to be debated sometime before we get some serious racial issues. It is simmering away….

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

    - Brenda:
    Yes indeed, and it was a good system… Provided you were one of the pakeha land owners and not one of the maori ones ;-)

    Thankfully all of that is gone now in favour of a system where maori voters can merely opt out of one electorate and into another. What’s the problem here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    @rg 12:01 pm

    There is only one party in parliament that is oppposed to racism and supports equality under the law, and that is ACT.

    Bwahahahaha!

    Here’s ACT’s Leader:

    If we continue the bankrupt response of just paying young Polynesian, young Maori men in South Auckland, the dole to sit in front of TV, smoke marijuana, watch pornography and plan more drug offending and more burglaries, then we’re going to have them coming through our window

    And here’s ACT’s chief funder:

    Every opportunity the Maoris get they have to do this war dance, whether it is for a funeral or something happy or a wedding. They feel they have to take all their clothes off, stick tongues out and wave spears. That’s not New Zealand … This is the problem with New Zealanders. Most of them dislike the Maoris intensely – I won’t say hate – but they don’t like to say so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. john.bt (170 comments) says:

    RRM… “What’s the problem here?”. It is called racism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    I think the revisionists who have captured the narative are racists myself and the worst kind.
    liberals.

    You can’t tell me that the chiefs at Waitangi, men who exercised wisdom for their tribes, didn’t think through and know what they were agreeing to and it wasn’t radio waves or all the seabed or rivers, just the bits they worked.
    They in their lifetimes had seen the decimation of some tribes by war and utu and knew full well what Maori were capable of and that wasn’t self government on a national scale.
    They also knew that they didn’t own all the land in a district, only what they could defend and work.
    Then they had seen the european and his technology and development and knew if they didn’t work with “Queenie” they would be passed by as they had done for lifetimes to others.

    No, these guys knew full well what they were doing and those who refused to sign away sovereignty knew what they weren’t.
    Thank God they did in one sense else our history would have been worse for them and their descendants.

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

    “I don’t think it is wise for the majority to remove something which has taken on huge significance with many Maori.”

    Why? If something is inherently racist and gives one minority a large advantage over all others it should be removed. That advantaged minority will never be in favour of its removal.

    As I’ve said often, the original treaty claims should be settled, the Treaty annulled and the Tribunal and the Maori seats abolished. All other options lead to ongoing serious problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    And you think the treaty and the circus around it isnt divisive?

    DPF – I think your experience last night with the fire alarm has resulted in your logic becoming unhinged.

    Anything race based is bad and will lead to tears. The treaty has developed into a religion where belief is much more important that facts and truth. It will lead to the ruination of this country if its ‘development’ (into myths and other rubbish) continues. Time to kill it dead.

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

    fish_boy: I have an open mind on the growing amount of evidence of pre-Maori inhabitants, but do not rely on it for my case. Clearly the Maori were the locals in 1840, and that’s all that matters where the Treaty is concerned (though I do feel sorry for the ethnically cleansed Moriori).

    What does pique my interest is when the state refuses to carbon date all evidence of pre-Maori habitation, and places 65 year embargoes on such evidence.

    Incidentally, I have never met Martin Doutre and do not agree with him on everything, but have had a long-standing email association with him and many other authors.

    Not wishing to be embarrassed in interviews with the likes of the aforementioned Tini Molyneux, I have interrogated them mercilessly, demanding evidence of their every claim.

    Invariably they have come up trumps with evidence from source documents, and Martin is one of the most factually rigorous.

    I am not interested in being exposed as ignorant, but I am more than happy to rely on the diligent work of published authors like Martin, Mike Butler, (Ngai Tahu’s) Jean Jackson, Bruce Moon, Ross Baker, John Robinson, Graham Butterworth and David Round, because unlike the Treatygaters they are motivated by the truth.

    (I should also add that I have mined Wellington Library and the works of honest historians from closer to the time under discussion, perhaps the most remarkable being James Cowan – a man now fashionably dismissed by Treatygater historians like James Belich as ‘Anglo-centric’ and therefore a threat to the West-hating Marxist liars who infest the halls of academe.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Positan (377 comments) says:

    Our race-based Maori seats are certainly not providing the sort of representation originally envisaged – nor do they contribute, in any way, to either the concept or the actuality of us being “one people.” The reality is that they function to separate our interests and to underline that separation whenever Maori perceive something of advantage to them. Two peoples signed the Treaty but it confers benefit on only one of them – the other always pays.

    While race relations here are better than many other places, they were a heck of a lot better 20-odd years ago prior to Geoffrey Palmer’s/Labour’s self-serving invention of “treaty principles” and the prostitution both of original intent and actuality that has resulted and worsened.

    Today’s “understanding” of Treaty matters by Maori is stratospheres distant from the intent of 1840’s signees – and that’s upheld and underlined by the fact of the 1860 Kohimarama gathering, when the substance of the Treaty was endorsed.

    The Treaty rendered peace and security to 1840 Maori, enabling them to live their lives free from their former constant threat of violence – and it’s utterly outrageous that as a result of demonstrably fraudulent, latter-day “interpretations” of Labour advantage-seekers, we’ve allowed the substance of Treaty issues to sink to their irrational, warped state.

    It’s way past time for counter-action and the return to the whole country of all the “settlements” that have been so completely fraudulent in their construction. The Maori seats must go, along with every other organization possessed of either race-based substance or membership. There are no equivalent structures outside Maoridom and those that exist only serve to give the lie to NZ being a non-racist country. As things stand, we’re as racist as the definition allows.

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

    To Kowtow: I know, it was a pretty lame first statement, but you see, I was laughing so hard at RRM’s statement that I could barely stay on my chair, let alone think of more to write at that instant. It’s almost unimaginable, or it would be if it wasn’t so sad, that some people in NZ still believe that kind of rubbish. But then, given the type of lies spread by so called education, the govt, the media and the iwi elite, I shouldn’t be surprised should I.

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

    Brenda – Go on then. 2:04pm. In your own words please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Redbaiter (6,478 comments) says:

    ” It’s almost unimaginable, or it would be if it wasn’t so sad, that some people in NZ still believe that kind of rubbish.”

    Worse, they have the vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. john.bt (170 comments) says:

    Even worser Red is that they teach our kids, infest the bureaucracy and get elected to run the country.

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

    brenda

    No I didn’t mean anything rude about your comment,certainly not lame.

    You were spot on.

    They don’t like it up ‘em.

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

    Nothing…?

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

    ok RRM. You seem like a typical kiwi bloke. Rugby, racing and beer, yeah? so you’ll know what they call it when some pussy on the footy field falls over and pretends the other guys has hurt him intentionally, right? Hollywood I believe is the term. Hollywood. An excellent term to describe play-acting to gain sympathy for an alleged misdeed, and exactly what they should have yelled at Turia in parliament when she was blubbering on about the imagined wrongs done to her people. Totally the best and most blatantly obvious Hollywood I’ve ever seen. She played it well. They even handed her tissues. Tissues. Not much substance in tissues. About as much as in the lies told to extract millions of taxpayers dollars out of the an equally and much wetter substancless govt. Using our hard earned money to make up for wrongs that were never perpetrated by people none of us even knew personally.
    You know RRM. I am sick to death of it. Sick up to my eyeballs of the whole thing. Me and a vast number of other kiwis. Some leave they’ve had such a guts full. Some of us are just gonna say now that enough is enough, and stand up for our beautiful country and the 85% of the population against whom this whole WoT rort is being foistered upon.

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

    Oh and RRM, I suggest you hang on tight – it’s going to be a bumpy ride :)

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

    I’ve often wondered over the years about how Hone heke and the flag is so celebrated in New zealand. A rebel!

    Of course as others have already pointed out our media,academia,educational establishment simply push one side of the story.

    We hear very little of Tamati Waka Nene. His role in history does not fit the bill.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C4%81mati_W%C4%81ka_Nene

    I suppose cutting down flag poles and being a rebel is “sexier” than supporting the Crown.So Establishment.Can’t have our young people thinking that loyalty and fidelity is a good thing, can we?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Positan…

    While race relations here are better than many other places, they were a heck of a lot better 20-odd years ago prior to Geoffrey Palmer’s/Labour’s self-serving invention of “treaty principles” and the prostitution both of original intent and actuality that has resulted and worsened.

    You’re right on the mark there Positan. Your point is also covered on the following article:

    It’s those fantastical ‘Treaty of Waitangi Principles’ again

    In fact both Richard Prebble and Mr Palmer are to be blamed for that self-serving invention of “treaty principles”.

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

    Brenda – yes tissues are pretty insubstantial.

    I wonder if it would be a good idea to have some sort of extra-judicial Tribunal to investigate whether there is any substance to alleged historic land thefts, and if so, whether present-day heirs to the estates of the rightful owners can be identified?

    (Because it’s wrong when agents of the state steal stuff from citizens, right?)

    Wait, isn’t that what we’re already doing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. john.bt (170 comments) says:

    Brenda… I do recall Turia going on about the holocaust at Parihaka. Whereas the only injury was to a poor little Maori kid who had his foot stood on by a horse. Some holocaust.

    RRM… That would be fine if the Tribunal was un-biased and based on the real history and if those on the tribunal weren’t making a fortune out of their decisions.

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

    john.bt:

    Yes it is a shame when present day politicians overstate their case massively and make an arse of themselves in their bid to make a splash. Thankfully, only Maori MPs do this. Of course the rest of them would never ever stoop to such depths. :-P

    Maybe it would be helpful if the said tribunal was to publish its findings in reports, so that anyone who wanted to could review and criticise them?

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

    I think that’s an excellent idea RRM. Providing it is a completely unbiased judicial Tribunal, I would thoroughly support it.

    And yes, it is very wrong for agents of the state to steal stuff from citizens, I agree totally. You should read up on the shocking example of just such as theft that happened at Maunganui. An absolute shocking disgrace on all govt and ToW functionaries involved.
    http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/AllanandSusanvsTheWaitangiTribunal.html

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

    Brenda –

    I agree that’s a terrible story.

    Clearly then, all Maori claimants are unscrupulous, all their claims are invalid at best and vexatious at worst, and the whole ToW settlement process should be wound up immediately. That is in effect what you’re saying isn’t it?

    On another matter – are you redbaiter’s wife?

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

    No RRM. I’m not saying anything of the sort.

    And, No, definitely not. I have no idea who Redbaiter is and I’m definitely not his wife. What on earth made you think such a thing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    Brenda

    RRM is just another liberal pillock.
    They can’t help it, their pride in themselves causes them to lash out at people and just be plain wicked to those who have another standpoint.
    Worse is if you stand up to them politely, Then they assign you to others they don’t like and use emotional baiting language to denigrate you.

    Welcome to Kiwiblog and the haters.

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

    Here’s a good one for Mainlanders

    http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/212056/complaint-industry-still-rambles

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. john.bt (170 comments) says:

    RRM… I appreciate many have said it before me but you really are a dumb-as-mud dickhead.

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

    The following is an example of the crap, and in places, outright lies those of us who want the truth will have to overcome.

    “Tangata Tiriti – What Does It Mean?
    Published: August 10, 2012
    by Catherine Delahunty

    A couple of bloggers who comment on the performance of Maori MPs have recently included me in their analysis because of the Te Tiriti focus in my political work. One of them commented that I am a “born again Maori” whose heart is in the right place. It is flattering to be included but curious that some cannot see that my work is driven by a commitment to Te Tiriti, not a yearning to have a whakapapa I do not have.

    My whakapapa includes a strong Irish tradition of activism and my education has included a grounding in Te Tiriti, the articles and the relationships. My understanding is that all of us who are not tangata whenua are Tangata Tiriti, the people who benefit from the 1840 agreement which is yet to be honoured but which gives us status under Article 1. The honouring of the agreement is our responsibility as beneficiaries of the agreement. If we don’t take on this challenge we are occupiers, not honourable negotiators, because majority rule isn’t any part of the arrangements Te Tiriti offers us. So I see nothing odd about standing up for Te Tiriti rights be it a land issue or a polluted river or a matter of social justice, water or education.

    I speak out on Te Tiriti issues because it is the responsibility of all of us, Pakeha or tauiwi from other places to monitor the Crown actions in our name. If we are part of the kawanatanga or non-Maori governance structure we have to make sure that we keep our representatives up to scratch and committed to the fairness which has yet to be implemented in this country.

    This is not simply a theoretical position – it means going on hikoi, speaking out with respect to Te Tiriti and often being misunderstood as either a traitor to western assumptions of legitimate dominance or a wannabe Maori. I have learned from some of the best who work on these issues that silence is consent. Some of us believe this could be a better country if Te Tiriti was fully honoured in local, regional and national life and that all of us would benefit.

    We celebrate progress and we challenge unexamined privilege, I am grateful to my mentors both Maori and Pakeha who keep me at least attempting to play a useful role. Pakeha like Mitzi Nairn who started anti-racism work in Auckland years ago, Professor David Williams who is leading Treaty lawyer and Christine Herzog of the Treaty Resource Centre to name but a few.

    I am also proud to be in the Green Party where our constitution upholds the indigenous text of Te Tiriti. It is a bit of a shame that my voice is noted as unusual, after all it takes two to tango, and Tangata Tiriti really cannot rely on the Government of the day to make this work. We need to engage critically to make sure our side of the bargain is something we can all be proud of.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. wat dabney (3,455 comments) says:

    They don’t seem to understand that the legislation which enabled the Welfare State completely negated the Waitangi Treaty.

    You can’t have both. Either you have property rights or you don’t.

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

    Linda – you appeared to be putting that story out there to illustrate that the whole process is flawed…? If not, what exactly is the meaning?

    John.bt – great comment! Really explains all the ToW’s problems. :-)

    My2cents – look in the mirror, and tell me what you see. :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Positan (377 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi

    re “It’s those fantastical ‘Treaty of Waitangi Principles’ again.”

    Thanks very much for that particular reference.
    I hadn’t seen it and I’ve learned a lot more from it.

    Positan

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

    @john.bt

    “RRM… I appreciate many have said it before me but you really are a dumb-as-mud dickhead.”

    Hold your praise untill you have met the cream of the crop on KB.
    RRM is quite educated and moderate compared to some of them..

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

    Absolutely.

    It’s time a line was drawn under this system of handouts and Maori were told, “NO MORE! You’ve been well recompensed for any grievances, real or imagined, and it’s time to get to work on just being fellow New Zealanders”.

    Otherwise we’re just going to keep on giving, and giving, and giving and it will never end.

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

    @fletch

    “Otherwise we’re just going to keep on giving, and giving, and giving and it will never end.”

    It’s now been going for almost 150 years, or more than 7 generations. It’s a way of life.
    Every new generation claims again….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. cha (3,537 comments) says:

    I see Bartons latest fantasy has been pulled because of his unsupportable claims Fletch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    @Fletch 7:18 pm

    Otherwise we’re just going to keep on giving, and giving, and giving and it will never end.

    So let’s just keep on taking and taking and taking from Maori that which is their legitimate property rights. That is what Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed Act did, and I suspect is what National will do by legislation too if Treaty claims derail their ill-advised and economically stupid asset sales programme.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. wat dabney (3,455 comments) says:

    their legitimate property rights.

    So Maori have property rights, by Whitey doesn’t.

    Pure, undiluted racism.

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

    Toad

    “So let’s just keep on taking and taking and taking from Maori that which is their legitimate property rights.”

    Who says they are legitimate?

    Do you Toad (and the Greens) just want to keep handing out our money to Maori with no end date?..Is your liberal white guilt that unbearable?

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

    toad, rubbish. Maori never owned the foreshore and seabed, and nor should they now.

    I’m about to coin a new phrase – a Snifter – brown on the inside and green on the outside :)

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

    “Otherwise we’re just going to keep on giving, and giving, and giving and it will never end.”

    Trouble is, some claims have been settled, some haven’t. We have a duty to address all claims, not just cut them off now because someone thinks the total is enough already.

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

    wat dabney (1,773) Says:

    So Maori have property rights, by Whitey doesn’t.

    Pure, undiluted racism.

    No-one is saying Whitey doesn’t have property rights.
    But you let me know if you can quote somebody actually saying Whitey doesn’t have property rights. Even just one would do. :-)

    Meanwhile, Some Maori tribes manage to spend years jumping through hoops in order to prove that they had property rights that were unlawfully extinguished by the state.

    And look what happens – a whole thread full of internet comments saying property rights are important and nanny state should keep her dirty hands off – but not when it’s a Maori who’s asserting the property rights. That’s just different, and if you need to ask why, well, umm…

    Yet somehow, it’s the Maoris that are the “racist” ones in all of this, not Whitey… :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. wat dabney (3,455 comments) says:

    But you let me know if you can quote somebody actually saying Whitey doesn’t have property rights. Even just one would do.

    Er, toad just did.

    Property rights either exist or they don’t.

    If the state may seize income for “redistribution” then it may equally seize land.

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

    And what happens to what payment the Maori are given? Exactly the same as happened in the past: they spend it all or lose it all and come back for more.

    Members of Taranaki’s northern-most iwi are this morning learning details of how it lost all of its treaty settlement money in a series of high-risk investments.

    As well as its $14.5 million settlement, Ngati Tama, has lost another $5 million since 2003.

    Many of the iwi’s 5000 members would only be hearing about the losses through the media.

    All up, the iwi’s trust made investments made investments worth $19.8 million, including more than $12.5million into Australian-based software company My Virtual Home Ltd, which is in liquidation with no assets.

    The tribe has been told at best, it might be able to recoup $1.5 million.

    A panel has been established to investigate the investments and take control of the iwi’s finances.

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

    Toad:

    I will no longer be doing an ad about Maori authorities only paying 17.5% tax compared with the normal 28%.

    I am persuaded by your argument that there is nothing shonky in that, because the rate was set simply to suit the tax rate of most of the beneficiaries.

    I am not an expert in tax matters, but my advisors advise me that you are correct.

    So fair cop.

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

    Fletch:

    Those Maoris are all the same eh? :lol:

    But seriously, where is the bit where Ngati Tama are coming back to the state for more? You appear to have left that bit of the quote out…?

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

    Fletch, what Maori do with their money is none of your or my business.

    John – good on you, that’s the right call on that. Hopefully all issues can be dealt with – one way or another – factually amongst all the heated discussion. Raising issues isn’t the problem, it’s how they’re dealt with that can be.

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

    RRM, that’s what WIllie Jackson reckoned, anyway –

    The Government should help out Taranaki iwi, Ngati Tama who recently lost $20million of the iwi’s Treaty settlement money, just like it bailed out South Canterbury Finance; Maori commentator Willie Jackson said in an interview on Marae Investigates.

    Mr Jackson was speaking along with Haumoana White from Taranaki, on the recent announcement by the iwi of its failed investment. Iwi were informed at a hui at Pukearuhe Marae on April 14 that of $19.8m invested, they might be able to recoup $1.5million. Greg White, Chief Executive of Ngati Tama Development Trust and nephew of Haumoana has accepted responsibility for the loss and resigned soon after the failed investment was revealed.  Ngati Tama received their Treaty settlement of $14.5m in 2003.

    He also said the Government should think about giving the iwi another $14.5m suggesting the original settlement should not have gone through because it was a “pitiful settlement” which the iwi had “jumped at” and in the process “undermined most of Taranaki”.

    “We are talking about a settlement process that recognises less than one percent of the actual loss of people, we are talking pathetic settlements Miriama.”

    Mr Jackson said the Government wouldn’t want to give anything but “if they can give money to South Canterbury Finance overnight which are mainly Pakeha investors they should give some thought to this but they won’t because there are a different set of rules for Maori. I know what happened was wrong and it was terrible and I know they won’t give any money but if they got into a different mindset here and realised that the whole settlement process is tremendously unfair for the people in the haukainga isn’t it.”

    When asked whether or not Ngati Tama could rebuild, Mr Jackson said it would be difficult. “But its funny what you can grow and I think they have got the right team in with Richard there. They have only got one and a half million but he’ll know how to invest it.”

    “[There's] good people in there who have got good business background a lot of expertise. I have hope that they can build it but I think they need to bring in the wider Ngati Tama.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. wat dabney (3,455 comments) says:

    Those Maoris are all the same eh?

    No, they’re not.

    But there are what Chris Rock calls “Niggers” – a self-appointed group which seeks only to plunder others and revel is their invented victimhood.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4

    The “Maori Party” are Chris Rock’s Niggers. Those who accept forcibly “redistributed” workers’ earnings whilst bleating about their ‘land rights’ are Chris Rock’s Niggers. The Green Party thinks that no Maori can ever be anything but one of Chris Rock’s Niggers. Toad tacitly condemns every Maori as one of Chris Rock’s Niggers.

    The Maori I work with are all top notch professionals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    @Fletch 8:13 pm (and others)

    toad, rubbish. Maori never owned the foreshore and seabed, and nor should they now.

    That is an issue that should have been arguable in court. The problem is that a weak Labour government under Clark caved in to the racist propaganda of the likes of John Ansell and Don Brash, abandoned principle for electoral pragmatism, and legislated to prevent the courts from testing Maori claims to ownership of the foreshore and seabed.

    Under pre-FSA common law, many claims could probably have been established to determine parts of the foreshore and seabed remained under customary Maori ownership.

    But, ironically, you are now right Fletch, because the current law, enacted by the last Labour Government and even as modified by the subsequent Maori Party / National Party legislation, deems that Maori do not and never have owned any of the foreshore and seabed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. wat dabney (3,455 comments) says:

    Do white people own the land in Europe?

    According to Toad, they do.

    Who knew! Land everywhere is owned not by people but by races.

    Foul racism.

    Of course, the left has a long and ignoble history of racism.

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

    Toad

    “That is an issue that should have been arguable in court. ”

    Hang on a moment. You and I debated this very issue at the time, you were of the opinion that should Maori have lost the battle in court then you thought that laws should be changed to ensure that they would win.

    How about you come clean Toad, stop telling half the story. You were (and I assume remain) of the opinion that it does not matter if the law goes against Maori, you want to give them damn near everything anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    @John Ansell 8:24 pm

    Thanks for that, John. I am not an expert on tax either, so my comment you refer to was something that should be accredited to Deborah at “A Bee of a Certain Age”.

    Perhaps you may apply a similar approach to history, on which you are also not an expert. I find it strange that you denigrate historians who have enormous peer respect, such as Claudia Orange, but rely, at least in part, on those like Martin Doutre, who are generally perceived in the academic world as unprofessional nutjobs.

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

    That is an issue that should have been arguable in court. The problem is that a weak Labour government under Clark caved in to the racist propaganda of the likes of John Ansell and Don Brash…

    No actually toad, ACT wanted to let the courts decide. It was Hulun who decided, fuck Maori, they don’t matter, what matters most is me and my re-election and if I give into these niggers then I’ll never get re-elected again.”

    That’s what Hulun’s calculation was toad, fair and square. And it’s both pathetic and telling, that you can’t sheet it home to the individual responsible for such an execrable move at the time, simply because your ideology blinds you to the reality of the execrableness and that person happens to be on your side.

    And BTW, I wouldn’t have personally used the n word, but quite frankly when you look at what Hulun did at the time, what other word can anyone possibly use, to describe it?

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

    Claudia Orange.

    “Born Claudia Josepha Bell, her father Monty Bell was a fluent Maori speaker, knew Apirana Ngata and joined the Department of Maori Affairs in Gisborne, so she grew up well aware of Maori issues.[1] She trained and practiced aa a dental nurse for 15 years[2] before starting university studies.”

    Yes Toad, she really seems like a person who would look at things objectively.

    As for your attack on Mr Doutre, that is truly gutless and something that I would expect from a Green.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    @big bruv 8:48 pm

    Hang on a moment. You and I debated this very issue at the time, you were of the opinion that should Maori have lost the battle in court then you thought that laws should be changed to ensure that they would win.

    Dunno where, dunno when! That is not the sort of argument I would put up – I respect the rule of law, and Parliament should not legislate over it retrospectively unless the legislation was a major cockup that has caused serious injustice.

    If you can find and post a link to what you claim I have said, please do so and I will further respond.

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

    @PG

    “Hopefully all issues can be dealt with – one way or another – factually amongst all the heated discussion.”

    Are you being dishonest or are you just extremely gullible?
    It hasn’t been settled in the last 150 years and it won’t be settled in another 150. Old claims will be revisited (As happened again and again before.) and new claims will be invented (Air waves, plants, water..).
    It will never be settled.
    Not in my time, not in my children’s’ time and not in my children’s children’s time.
    Never…….!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. MH (558 comments) says:

    The various historical Departments of Aboriginee Affairs,Native Affairs and Maori and all the other quasi demi whanau phoney auras tax funded props and the monies paid out by these race based selective institutions never seems to be included or taken into account in any reparation deals. Should have included the Dept of Corrections as well. Imagine if every “British subject” could enjoy the benefits of separate health and housing and education and days off for haka practice and extended family funerals. Historical Frictions by Michael Belgrave is worth putting on all your reading lists as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    @Reid 8:56 pm

    No actually toad, ACT wanted to let the courts decide.

    Agreed, Reid. That is one of the few things I give ACT credit for, at least at the time.

    Although might be a different story now the amnesiac and racist John Banks is running the show.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    @Reid 8:56 pm

    And BTW, I wouldn’t have personally used the n word…

    I didn’t. That was wat dabney.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. wat dabney (3,455 comments) says:

    and racist John Banks

    Jesus Christ.

    Toad, it is you who has been spewing forth your disgusting racial politics here.

    Take your sickening racial theories elsewhere please.

    We are discussing how to make New Zealand colourblind and you favour us with your Nazi-inspired opinions about how different races must be treated differently.

    You were born a century too late.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. wat dabney (3,455 comments) says:

    I didn’t. That was wat dabney.

    No, it was Chris Rock.

    Do you have to twist everything to match your santimonious opinion of yourself?

    When I was young, people campaigned against apartheid. Now, the self-serving left campaigns for it.

    Pure racism from the Greens and Labour. Because they think they can make political capital out of it.

    Twas ever thus. It has been argued that Hitler didn’t really hate Jews but merely exploited them as a political scapegoat. Certainly hasn’t done the Greens any harm to whip up racial hatred.

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

    Agreed, Reid. That is one of the few things I give ACT credit for, at least at the time. Although might be a different story now the amnesiac and racist John Banks is running the show.

    What would be good toad is that the politicians stopped playing games and started sheeting home real blame, where the blame really lies, and then passed laws that allowed that blame to be acted out, on telly, perhaps in special shows in prime time, where the people really then would learn, about history and everything like that, live, in their living rooms, because that’s really what this is about.

    Maori have to learn this can’t go on forever and Europeans have to learn it won’t last forever and the end date when it doesn’t happen anymore is [TBC]. But then, that’s it. Forever. Fully and finally. Period. Full stop. Not one generation more. Never resurrected no matter what because we said so in law so there, period, full stop, never again, it’s just not happening.

    I think toad in all consideration the whole Maori issue in the entire country would be resolved, if the country knew that we had a concept like the foregoing paragraph and that both sides had signed up to it and would keep their children to it. I think the issue is like Pandora’s box that you can sign up one side to it, anytime, but the other side never will, because it’s like the saltmill at the bottom of the ocean that keeps grinding out salt to make the ocean salty. And quite frankly toad, as a lefty, I don’t know how you can support the people who believe in the saltmill, since if anything is racist, that is. As in, there is endless settlement monies, it will never end, not ever. So fill your boots. And toad, if that’s not precisely what the left encourage, then what do they encourage? And how does that benefit us?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. MH (558 comments) says:

    And what would the court decide? We all know the result. Pro courtiers say it is the right to do so that is the issue, not its futility. Uninterrupted access and use,continuous for customary title. Well we would have had we not sold the land or had it confiscated. Another never ending claim circus. We see on TV the claimants,mostly from the Islands on Coastwatch most weekends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. wat dabney (3,455 comments) says:

    but the other side

    There’s your problem.

    There are no sides, except those which political groups seek to define; either to create imagined grievances for or to demonise.

    The idea that “Maori” or “Europeans” own anything as a race is as absurd as it is appalling, yet here we have our resident racist Toad explain how it is indeed so.

    Jack boots are so last century, Toad. But here you are brushing off all the racist theories of the 30′s in order to win a few more grubby votes for the Greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    wat dabney 9:17 pm

    We are discussing how to make New Zealand colourblind and you favour us with your Nazi-inspired opinions about how different races must be treated differently.

    Godwin Alert!

    I’m doing nothing of the sort wat. Assuming that before whitey was here everything was owned by the people who lived here before whitey, I am just saying that everything that whitey acquired should have been done so legitimately by way of either sale or voluntary cession.

    Given Te Tiriti, claim by conquest or confiscation as war compensation were not legitimate options.

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

    “Assuming that before whitey was here everything was owned by the people who lived here before whitey….”

    Ignoring the racist slurs, your assumption is wrong using the Maori custom of ahi ka.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. OneTrack (1,963 comments) says:

    Toad – but that is not what the green party is saying. What they are saying is that we must have a “partnership” with maori. Maori must have permanent representation in parliament and city councils, such as Auckland. And Maori must be consulted whenever anybody does something, such as build a motorway (here’s a taniwha, pay up), build a rail tunnel under Auckland (here’s another taniwha), etc tc, ad infinitum. We must ask their permission to do things, even though they have no ownership of the property concerned (because there was a big fight there 200 years ago.

    So, you are being disingenuous in saying this is simply resolution of property rights issues. And, more and more people just can’t see how NZ (no not Aotearoa) can survive with this constant dragging backwards. While guilt-ridden lefties like yourself turn the other way when issues regarding Maori parenting issues are raised, and the refusal to even consider there might be a problem. Mainly because it might challenge your world-view of the noble savage, corrupted by the evil white man.

    The reaction of many, including some Maori who can think for themselves, is to head for the airport, and put all this fascist garbage behind them. And you promote yourselves as promoters of equal rights. Yeah right. Tell us again about Catherine Delahuntys idea that we should move beyond “limited” concepts like one man, one vote. She never explains what he has in mind. I think she means we should move to a model whereby “chiefs” make all the decisions for us “just like in the Maori culture”. I guess she (and you) would be one of the chiefs.

    Yeah, modern democracy is such a limited concept. Some silly people actually vote for “unapproved” things such as negative freedom. Not while the Greens are around I’m sure.

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

    Toad:

    Academics plummeted in my estimations during my study of the climate debate. I find Treaty historians exhibit the same Marxist myopia.

    My estimation of Claudia Orange plummeted when I read her updated version of Treaty of Waitangi and saw that she failed to mention the Littlewood document even once.

    Now she was quickly on the scene when the Littlewood document was found in 1989, so it’s not as though she’d never heard of it.

    Tellingly, she is on record as saying something to the effect of “this will be very embarrassing politically”.

    Now my point is this: if you were an honest, unblinkered historian, and a document surfaced in 1989 that had all the hallmarks of Hobson’s missing final English draft, WOULD YOU NOT AT LEAST MENTION THAT DISCOVERY in your comprehensive history of the Treaty – even if only to discredit it?

    EVEN IF (and I don’t believe this to be true for a moment given the evidence) the document is just another back-translation, as the Treatygaters conveniently and most unconvincingly assert, there is no doubting that its discovery was a part of Treaty history.

    Surely any historian worth their salt would have referred to it.

    Orange’s failure to so much as mention this discovery in passing suggests to me that she is an A Grade Treatygater.

    What does it suggest to you?

    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.