A constitutional issues poll

April 7th, 2013 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

I’ve blogged at Curiablog the details of a poll by ResearchNZ on . Pleased to see 58% support for a four year term, but that is not the surprising result.

If NZ does adopt a written constitution, 58% said they support incorporating the principles of the into it, with only 35% opposed.

I’m a bit surprised by that level of support. Mind you if you asked along the lines of “Do you think the Supreme Court should be able to strike down laws that it finds are inconsistent with the Treaty of Waitangi“, you may get a somewhat different result.

Tags: ,

106 Responses to “A constitutional issues poll”

  1. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    That’s an ambiguous statement: are we talking about a general “principles of the treaty of Waitangi”, or are we talking about enumerating the principles?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Reid (16,447 comments) says:

    If NZ does adopt a written constitution, 58% said they support incorporating the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi into it, with only 35% opposed.

    What’s the point of asking people a question which no-one understands? It would have more honest to have asked “Do you support the principles of the Wurzenflugel being incorporated into our constitution?” because at least then, the 58% of idiots who said yes would have thought to themselves “what the hell does that mean?” before they gave their answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (8,822 comments) says:

    Flakey polling being used to encourage those Wellington bastards again?

    The very thought of that pack of statist socialists racists and troughers composing any kind of constitution should give any sane person nightmares.

    Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The general principle of the treaty was to screw the natives through the use of ambiguous language.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Reason number 749 why we have parliament to decide the laws of the land. The hoi poloi have no idea. Too busy fishing, getting pissed/stoned and watching Shortland St.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Bullshit, UglyTruth. Like most, you conveniently forget that it was the natives who repeatedly asked to be colonised, and in so doing, the natives got a free pass into the greatest empire in the world at the time. Few of the natives have ever said thank you for the free pass.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Silly Will Bunions, parliament does not make the law of the land, it lies about it. The law of the land is common law, not “statute law”.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Silly Will Bunions,

    The ambiguity was that the English version of the treaty spoke of Maoris ceding their sovereignty, while the Maori version of the treaty did not.

    Re “greatest empire”, care to explain how the deaths of of an estimated 50000+ children in the name of religious education is an outcome of greatness?

    http://www.salem-news.com/articles/july272012/brantford-dig-jj.php

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    So, in other words, Maori would be able to undertake constructive court cases based on substantive evidence within a transparent and objective judicial process, instead of more radical solutions? Sounds reasonable to me. It might have the side effect of sidelining some of the more dissonant voices on their side of Treaty issues. Now, if only the whingeing Treaty-bashers on the other side could also be more reticent. Incidentally, opposing the Treaty’s inclusion within a written constitution assists a possible future National/Maori Party coalition partnership how, David? After all, compared to ACT and United Future, it is in relatively better health.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. peteremcc (344 comments) says:

    Forcing them to actually having to write down what the “principles” are as part of the process of discussing a constitution might actually help highlight what a nonsense they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    UglyTruth,

    Your inventive interpretation of the Treaty demonstrates exactly why it should not form part of any NZ Constitution.

    Which empire was greater in the world in 1840 than the British empire? Don’t answer in riddles and irrelevances.
    Maori chose to accept a free pass into the greatest world empire then existing. No-one forced Maori to sign te Tiriti. And 540 CHIEFS (not plebs like you, but CHIEFS) couldn’t sign it quickly enough. Are you UglyTruth a chief, and do you have the mana to be insulting your ancestral chiefs as you are wont to do.

    There is only one te Tiriti, and it is in the Maori language.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Redbaiter (8,822 comments) says:

    “So, in other words, Maori would be able to undertake constructive court cases based on substantive evidence within a transparent and objective judicial process, instead of more radical solutions?”

    Same old far left- disgusting propaganda mingled with threats of violence.

    Bring it on MF.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. duggledog (1,556 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth or should that be Lies, Maori knew full well they were going to be colonised one way or another. Most were keen on the idea anyway they were sick of living with the daily fear of being attacked, murdered, raped and enslaved by fellow tribes.

    They chose the English as opposed to the other European powers because they knew the others were pretty much going to wipe them off the face of the Earth. Maori weren’t stupid back then, they knew which side their bread was buttered (unlike now)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Far from it, Reddy. What’s ‘far left’ about an inclusive constitutional and judicial process based on evidential quality? And you’ll notice that I support such a position precisely because it will dilute and sideline radical opinions within Maori communities still further. Typical populist cant from you, as usual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Silly Will Bunions,
    In what way is my interpretation of the treaty inventive? The colonial government operated in terms of the English version, not the Maori one. If it didn’t have sovereignty then it couldn’t confiscate land.

    Do you measure greatness in terms of the body count of the innocent? There are plenty of accounts of the murder and sexual abuse of children within the Canadian residential schools as well as documentary evidence of their genocidal purpose.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Maori knew full well they were going to be colonised one way or another

    Rubbish. NZ’s bush and rugged terrain eliminated much of the English technological advantage. Maori were more than competent in close quarter fighting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Redbaiter (8,822 comments) says:

    “What’s ‘far left’ about an inclusive constitutional and judicial process based on evidential quality?”

    The idea that one race (mythical Maori) deserves special treatment is a leftist concept in that to maintain such a social condition, a country would need big powerful government. As any separatist system would.

    As for your propaganda term “dilute”, it is code for surrender to radicals anyway. Fuck them, and fuck you. We do not need this kind of government, we do not need separatism/ fascism, we do not need statism, and we do not need shallow propagandists like you posting your sickeningly transparent statist claptrap here. Few are fooled.

    As for my “populist cant”- fuck you and your offensive commie crap. It is blunt unfashionable truth, that’s why brainwashed socialist lemmings like you don’t like it.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    UglyTruth. Your answer to te Tiriti issues is to transfer the topic to the way Canadians (mixture of French/English/Spanish) dealt with the natives there. Idiotic. Not interested in engaging on this school-girl logic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, you want to talk about Treaty issues, how about talking about Treaty issues, not Canadian issues. I don’t recall there being a Waitangi treaty in Canada.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Redbaiter (8,822 comments) says:

    “Not interested in engaging on this school-girl logic.”

    His basis for granting so called Maori special rights to the broadcasting spectrum was that stars emit transmissions. That will give you an idea who you are dealing with.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, what makes you such an expert on the collective stupidity of 1840s Maori Chiefs? All 540 of these chiefs idiots according to you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Reid (16,447 comments) says:

    A much better and more accurate question would have been:

    “Do you think Maori deserve more than you do in every single area and facet of govt operations and do you want this to be written into the constitution so this special treatment lasts forever?”

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Red-baiter, you said of UglyTruth “his logic”. Surely, “her logic”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Silly Will Bunions,

    Your answer to te Tiriti issues is to transfer the topic to the way Canadians

    You introduced the idea of the greatness of the empire, not me. As well a relating to the empire, the Canadian issue relates to the betrayal of native people by the Crown, which is apparent in the issue of Maori sovereignty.

    All 540 of these chiefs idiots according to you.

    Being lied to by the Crown doesn’t make anyone an idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    His basis for granting so called Maori special rights to the broadcasting spectrum was that stars emit transmissions.

    I never argued that Maori should get preferential treatment re the radio spectrum. My argument with you was based on your ignorance of the nature of radio waves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    NZ’s bush and rugged terrain eliminated much of the English technological advantage. Maori were more than competent in close quarter fighting.

    Clearly that’s true, but probably not relevant. If you are forced to retreat to the hills then starvation is only a matter of weeks or months away.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Redbaiter (8,822 comments) says:

    To seriously think that any adult in this day does not know that stars emit radio waves suggests some kind of bizarre detachment from reality. The same detachment that makes you seek to argue Canada when the issue is NZ. Or else you’re just fudging in an unbelievably weak attempt to try and win a point. Either way, you’re a fool and not worth any more time.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    “Radio waves did not exist until transmitters started transmitting them.” ~ Redbaiter

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/02/spectrum_is_not_a_taonga_say_government.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    (Don’t know about Canadian chiefs but) 540 Maori chiefs chose to do business with the British (Australian), when they could have chosen to go it alone, or go with Spanish, or French, or Portuguese (remembering that Portuguese is the most common mother tongue in the Southern Hemisphere (didn’t know that did you?)).

    The Chiefs sought out and accepted the offer on the table from British. The chiefs were highly intelligent (mainly) men. They were the elite of all Maori of the era. They were sick to death of the killing and raping and eating of each other that was going on at the time, and needed/wanted a solution. These elite Maori chose British. And the offer on the table – te Tiriti – was a damned good one by any previous world-class standards.

    And idiot Maori over our most recent 40 years 1973 to 2013, have had no respect whatsoever for the mana of the elite Maori who chose to sign te Tiriti. Not one Maori chief was lied to. Not one had his a hand tied behind their back while signing. Not one Maori signed te Tiriti at the point of a gun.

    2013 idiots have no respect for the mana of the chiefs, the elite, of Maori who did what they knew was best at the time, for the entirety of Maoridom. If they hadn’t signed, the chiefs knew that Maori were on track to wipe the entire Maori nation out within decades.

    Now say thank you to us British for saving you. Without us British, you would not even exist today to be rewriting history books, and making your 2013 lying demands.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Now say thank you to us British for saving you. Without us British, you would not even exist today to be rewriting history
    books, and making your 2013 lying demands.

    I’m european, you retard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Then UglyTruth, stop insulting the then-elite of Maoridom, the 540 Maori chiefs, by your presuming that you know better than they did, what was good for Maori in 1840.
    [And STFU about Canada.]

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    “Now Maori, say thank you to us British for saving you. Without us British, you Maori would not even exist today to be rewriting history books, and making your 2013 lying demands.”

    That better?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I know better that the treaty chiefs because I have the advantage of the knowledge of the conduct of the Crown in other countries.

    Kevin Annett states that instruments of torture such as a rack for torturing the Mohawk children in ritual torture have been found at the now closed Mohawk Institute. Eyewitnesses from the Mohawk community have stated they witnessed priests in red robes torturing children in ritual torture.

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican69.htm

    I notice you have a tendency towards slander, Silly Will Bunions. In a religious context a slanderer is a devil.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Slander? Moi? Who called who a ‘retard’?

    Redbaiter, you’re right. This is not a debater, this is an idiot.

    Shame Mohawk didn’t get themselves a treaty. Imagine how much better off Mohawk could have been with one. Canada could now have one national priority above all else to move their already very successful country forward – their Mohawk Tribunal.
    [Now you've got me talking Canadian]

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    Radio waves did not exist until transmitters started transmitting them

    Brilliant.

    Yet just a short while later, without missing a beat, and after it having been pointed out to him that astronomical objects generate emissions at radio frequencies:

    To seriously think that any adult in this day does not know that stars emit radio waves suggests some kind of bizarre detachment from reality.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Redbaiter.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    So, UglyTruth, would Maori have been better off if their (stupid-by-your-view) elite had not signed te Tiriti in 1840?

    Can you imagine Canada incorporating the Mohawk Treaty (if one existed) into the constitution of Canada, or the undefined ‘Principles of the Mohawk Treaty’ into the Canadian Constitution? Way to move forward, Canada.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. chrisw76 (85 comments) says:

    For those that would to understand better how the courts have interpreted what the “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” are and what may be a good starting point for defining these in a constitutional document here is a good starter: http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/doclibrary/public/Appendix(99).pdf

    The shorter version is the list originating from the ’87 case heard in the Court of Appeal by Robin Cooke (New Zealand Māori Council v. Attorney-General) and subsequently adopted by the forth Labour Government in 1989 (borrowed from Wikipedia):

    Principle of government or the kawanatanga principle
    Article 1 gives expression to the right of the Crown to make laws and its obligation to govern in accordance with constitutional process. This sovereignty is qualified by the promise to accord the Māori interests specified in article 2 an appropriate priority. This principle describes the balance between articles 1 and 2: the exchange of sovereignty by the Māori people for the protection of the Crown. It was emphasised in the context of this principle that ‘the Government has the right to govern and make laws’.

    Principle of self-management (the rangatiratanga principle)
    Article 2 guarantees to Māori hapū (tribes) the control and enjoyment of those resources and taonga that it is their wish to retain. The preservation of a resource base, restoration of tribal self-management, and the active protection of taonga, both material and cultural, are necessary elements of the Crown’s policy of recognising rangatiratanga.

    The Government also recognised the Court of Appeal’s description of active protection, but identified the key concept of this principle as a right for iwi to organise as iwi and, under the law, to control the resources they own.

    Principle of equality
    Article 3 constitutes a guarantee of legal equality between Māori and other citizens of New Zealand. This means that all New Zealand citizens are equal before the law. Furthermore, the common law system is selected by the Treaty as the basis for that equality, although human rights accepted under international law are also incorporated. Article 3 has an important social significance in the implicit assurance that social rights would be enjoyed equally by Māori with all New Zealand citizens of whatever origin. Special measures to attain that equal enjoyment of social benefits are allowed by international law.

    Principle of reasonable cooperation
    The Treaty is regarded by the Crown as establishing a fair basis for two peoples in one country. Duality and unity are both significant. Duality implies distinctive cultural development while unity implies common purpose and community. The relationship between community and distinctive development is governed by the requirement of cooperation, which is an obligation placed on both parties by the Treaty. Reasonable cooperation can only take place if there is consultation on major issues of common concern and if good faith, balance, and common sense are shown on all sides. The outcome of reasonable cooperation will be partnership.

    Principle of redress
    The Crown accepts a responsibility to provide a process for the resolution of grievances arising from the Treaty. This process may involve courts, the Waitangi Tribunal, or direct negotiation. The provision of redress, where entitlement is established, must take account of its practical impact and of the need to avoid the creation of fresh injustice. If the Crown demonstrates commitment to this process of redress, it will expect reconciliation to result.

    Given that these principles have been written down for some time, can we drop the pretence that nobody understands what they mean? Sure the wording is vague and can evolve, but just look at the US Constitution for wording that’s meaning similarly moves around even for the originalists.

    Cheers, Chris W.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Tail wagging dog, chrisw.

    So we have some guidelines from our second from highest court. Just because we have them, does not mean that they must be incorporated into a constitution.

    Besides. How many of the 58 percent supporting the incorporation of the “principles” into a constitution, would want THOSE particular principles incorporated into anything? 1 percent I suggest. They are waffle, not even remotely in constitutional language.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    Hi-jacking public institutions simply to glory in one’s own race is nothing more than an exercise in race hate. And ignorance.

    Maori today are behaving just like the British once did: Trying to build an empire by conquest.

    The Treaty is mainly about Maori and the State co-existing – it was never about buliding a ‘Maori designed State’ – by Maoris alone. And getting others to pay for it.

    Just because Maori exist doesn’t mean that their customs and heritage are any more important than anyone elses. Maori have no ‘rightful place’ -imposing- their customs on others via a Constitution or by renaming entire islands.
    Recognising Maori or helping Maori doesn’t mean you then have to label every government department and state object in Maori language and design.
    Just like everyone else, if Maori want to preserve and record their own outdated customs they can use the public muesum.

    The very reason that Maori are useless at most things – statisticly speaking – is that they won’t learn the very best things of other cultures: Latin, Greek, French which make up the english language, and which educational standards are set to. These are living artifacts from other cultures because they are useful.

    Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Indians built upon mathmatics, but according to some Maoris this is ‘white man stuff’, stuff that ain’t about ‘us Maori’ – so can’t be learnt in schools by Maori kids. Sad really.

    Maori instead are living in competition with Samoans, Tongans and Fijians “We’re doing best Bro”. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Article 1 gives expression to the right of the Crown to make laws and its obligation to govern in accordance with constitutional process. This sovereignty is qualified by the promise to accord the Māori interests specified in article 2 an appropriate priority.

    The Crown’s right is limited because sovereignty was not ceded by Māori. Hobsons declaration of sovereignty is also false.

    can we drop the pretence that nobody understands what they mean?

    Anyone who say that they understand a fiction isn’t competent.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Reid (16,447 comments) says:

    Given that these principles have been written down for some time, can we drop the pretence that nobody understands what they mean?

    Er. No.

    What’s a “taonga” Chris? As expressed in “Principle 2.”

    See, that’s the point.

    Are you deliberately being disingenuous, or do you think we’re all stupid?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    “Article First

    The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England forever the entire Sovereignty of their country.”

    UglyTruth, what part of Article First do you not understand? This is exactly what te Tiriti says when translated back into English.
    Stop your guilt-ridden blind hugging of maori, UglyTruth, and you might see the ugly truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    540 CHIEFS – the maori elite of 1840 signed the above article (in te reo). No-one held a gun to any of their heads. You, UglyTruth, represent the epitome of why neither te Tiriti nor its ‘principles’ can be allowed to become part of the NZ constitution. It is because you cannot lie straight in bed. You cannot accept the truth. If we incorporate maori lies into our constitution, we will end up like Mohawk today, arguing over these lies for hundreds of years to come, never reaching our world-standard potential.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    So, UglyTruth, would Maori have been better off if their (stupid-in-your-view) elite had not signed te Tiriti in 1840?

    Can you imagine Canada incorporating the Mohawk Treaty (if one existed) into the constitution of Canada, or the undefined ‘Principles of the Mohawk Treaty’ into the Canadian Constitution? Way to move forward, Canada.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Article Second

    The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs & tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Article Third

    In return for the cession of the Sovereignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.

    I don’t know why people need to improve on what Hobson wrote and what he signed, and what 540 CHIEFS signed in good faith in 1840, as the elite of maori at the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    So, UglyTruth, would Maori have been better off if their (stupid-in-your-view) elite had not signed te Tiriti in 1840?

    I never suggested that the chiefs were stupid. Your propensity towards slander and you sycophantic attitude towards the empire speaks volumes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Silly Will Bunions,

    As you do not understand Maori how do you know what represents the Maori language version of the Treaty?

    You are much like the expert in the Bain compensation post who had no knowledge of the value of the Bain estate.

    Reid has already raised the issue of the evolving meaning of the word taonga, perhaps you want to explain the difference between chieftainship governance and sovereignty as expressed in Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    So would maori have been better off, sycophant (not the slander-type-sycophant of course), if the 540 elite had not signed te Tiriti?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Bain? Who is Bain? And (at the risk of going off topic) what is a Bain compensation post?

    And I know that tao means spear. So presumably taonga means something to do with spear – perhaps obtained by spear.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Harriet, what is the difference between Maori providers and church providers. Are USA church providers in education, health housing and welfare any different to Maori providers here?

    You call Maori public institutions race hate – what then are religious providers funded by the state in the USA?

    Just calling your white race religious supremacism for what it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Silly Will Bunions

    You sound much like the person who made posts on that topic. And spent their summer holidays here because of it.

    I accept your confession that you have no expertise in the Maori language, so I will note your 11.17 am post

    “There is only one te Tiriti, and it is in the Maori language.”‘

    And you do not understand Maori.

    The issue is what are the Maori words for chieftainship, governance and sovereignty?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    SPC, do you post anything on topic ever? USA church providers ffs.
    And what gives you the right to presume the level of my te reo ability?
    SPC, why do you assume that the maori elite of 1840 were idiots. They spoke maori very well, and knew exactly what they were signing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    I accept your confession that you have no expertise in the Maori language, so I will note your 11.17 am post

    I see, you are one of these smart arses who twists people’s words, then misquotes them back at them as gospel. Grow up, this trick reflects on its user, never on its target. My confession of no expertise in te reo?!? Grow up SPC. No wonder you want to discuss USA church groups in a thread on te Tiriti.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Silly Will Bunions

    So you are an empty windbag.

    You post “There is only one te Tiriti, and it is in the Maori language.”‘ Then you post the English version, as if you have never even heard the claim that the English translation is not the same, or that the UN regards the native language version as the standard of any Treaty.

    Clearly you are unable to add anything on the issues of chieftainship, governance and sovereignty in relation to the Treaty principles being in a constitution.

    Apart from the pithy we won you lost, accept being a native minority over-ruled by the descendants of the colonial settlers and those they allow to migrate here. With bullet points – well those Maori wanted the Treaty, they needed our civilisation, they are not grateful enough etc etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    SPC, whatever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Silly Will Bunions,

    I think Ugly Truth had you summed up, a troll who likes flaming against Maori playing to racist attitudes amongst right wingers. And making personal attacks on anyone seen to stand up to the tactic. White boy playing tough on the message boards, not an uncommon story. One issue politics Ansell wants your vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Personal attacks? You mean UglyTruth calling me a retard and a sycophant, and your calling me a racist. I see.
    Like I said, whatever. I have my views. They are not racist. I have simply asked why Mohawk need to be represented in the Canadian constitution? I think Mohawk references in the Canadian constitution would make Canadians look really childish/infantile/immature as international citizens. Next thing you will want left-handers having a special place in the NZ constitution, and women, and gays – perhaps even Jews and Buddhists.

    And btw, if John Ansell were to start a one-issue party, I would indeed vote for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    But look, SPC, let me ask you a question (UglyTruth can answer as well).
    Why should race be a feature of an NZ constitution?
    And how does it make me a racist to not want race to be mentioned in our constitution? I want everyone to be equal, thus equal in our constitution, thus race not mentioned in a constitution.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    “….You call Maori public institutions race hate – what then are religious providers funded by the state in the USA?…”

    No I didn’t.

    I was talking about Maori design, language, customs, protocols, mysticism ect being forced upon ALL government departments. Simply because Maori say-so due to ‘treaty conditions’. It’s done by government simply to allow Maori to glorify in their race, as in practise it serves no real purpose.

    Churches don’t get invited to perform their rituals at the opening of government buildings unless they have provided a service – but Maori are invited to. And if they are not, then the government is ‘racist’. It’s a load of crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Johnboy (16,529 comments) says:

    Harriet my dear. Do I detect a subtle hint of rebellion against the endless onslaught of the teaching (shall we do them the courtesy of calling them a profession?).

    Not to mention the endless glorification of stone age line dancing as evidenced by kapa haka on murri TV, that bugger-all watch but we all get to pay for.

    I do think however think that paddling ethnic canoes is a worthwhile sport as long as the paddlers keep on heading back to Hawaiki once they have cleared territorial waters! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Johnboy (16,529 comments) says:

    Anyone know just how many Shites David personally took out while saving the Iraqi’s from themselves?

    If we could pin that down and check his bank accounts we could equate the dollar value of UN Shite op’s v the wafflealogical credibility of anybody appointed to Labour Party leadership.

    If I was a younger man ( and gave a shit) I could do my Doctorate on that! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Silly Will Bunions

    I said you were playing to racist attitudes on a right wing blog. If you think that is calling you a racist, you should not be discussing an issue such as constitutional law.

    If you do not know the difference between an indigenous people and other groups, you should not be discussing an issue such as constitutional law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Harriet, if you want to refer only to cultural matters and awareness of Maori protocol in a state where Maori are the indigenous people and Maori an official language, rather than Maori providers acting for those same departments of state – then what do you you call the prayer in parliament?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    what do you you call the prayer in parliament?

    Affirmation of the connection between church and state?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    And .. speaking of pots, kettles and black, SPC .. you also called me a troll. But you will no doubt be nitpicking your way out of this one as well.

    How about you change the record and actually answer one of my perfectly legit questions. Start with this one.

    Why should race (or left-handedness) be a feature of an NZ constitution?

    Hmm?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    SWB reminds me of the guy who attempted to pull off the following linguistic stunt:

    Even if what you were saying was correct, that would be like saying because Libertarians oppose public roads that we shouldn’t be able to drive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, there is no connection between the church and state in New Zealand.

    It’s a cultural practice, because this is what the English parliament does and there …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    SWB,

    Being Maori is not a racial identity – in modern meaning it is being a descendant of the indigenous people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. kowtow (8,459 comments) says:

    Indigenous; originating or occurring naturally in a particular place.

    As anyone born in NZ “originates” here or “occurs naturally” then all NZ born people are “indigenous”. Race has nothing to do with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, there is no connection between the church and state in New Zealand.

    Except for the parliament prayer. the oath of allegiance, the Anglican article of religion which assumes jurisdiction over all men, and the fact that the head of state is the “Supreme Governor” of the Anglican church.

    You were quite big on denying the Zionist agenda too, IIRC.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Warren Murray (311 comments) says:

    Any written constitution should supersede and replace the treaty. Doing so could resolve any continuing disagreements about what each side thought was covered in the treaty.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Johnboy (16,529 comments) says:

    Any constitution that prohibited discovering a murri name for everything and banned dancing about with a spear and your arse hanging out I would support. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. wiseowl (893 comments) says:

    To suggest in a poll that the “principles of the treaty “be included needs clarification.Did they also ask if the treaty be included.?

    Whichever, this approach by the researchers once again appears to be driven by people who have no understanding of the issue themselves and one must ask who is really behind this poll anyway?

    It is so dam serious its not funny and Key should be disbanding this biased merry crew trying to wreck this fine country and injecting some reality into our future.

    The Nats continue to wear ear plugs.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    If NZ does adopt a written constitution, 58% said they support incorporating the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi into it, with only 35% opposed.Mind you if you asked along the lines of “Do you think the Supreme Court should be able to strike down laws that it finds are inconsistent with the Treaty of Waitangi“, you may get a somewhat different result.

    Given that NZ’s handwringing judges are already desperate to interpret statutes so that they do not offend the principles of the treaty (whatever the fuck those principles are, most likely whatever iwi say they are) I don’t think the former scenario is any less dangerous.

    If we put treaty “principles” in the NZ constitution, then:

    No giving up part of the radio spectrum to Maori elite? Unconstitutional.
    No preferential funding of scholarships for Maori students? Unconstitutional.
    Sale of government land which some Maori died on 500 years ago? Unconstitutional
    Speaking ill of Maori traditions? Unconstitutional or “hate speech” etc

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, the prayer only occurs as a cultural legacy reflecting what the English parliament does.

    The oath of allegiance is to the Crown of New Zealand. There is no state church, nor religion here.

    We do not under the UK Crown, thus have no link to the Anglican Church of England.

    “You were quite big on denying the Zionist agenda too, IIRC.”

    Your conspiracy theory about the Zionist agenda and the 6M number is about as pertinent to real history as your confusion of our Crown with the UK Crown – it does explain your confusing English common law with New Zealand’s legal circumstance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    kowtow,

    As Reid put it, the word taonga comes to mean more and more across time, your expansion of the meaning of the word indigenous is similar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Johnboy (16,529 comments) says:

    Nothing the Maori race has ever done has enhanced the value of New Zealand other than their ability to fleece dumb kulture touristas of cash.

    They are a net drain on the economy of this country and as such any of their demands should be assessed against what added value their existence generates.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Johnboy, thanks for expounding on the racist attitudes here that I accused SWB of pandering to.

    Legal rights only existing for those who deserve them… sometimes I wonder about the confusion of debates about Maori and the Treaty, welfare and the undeserving poor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    SPC — As Reid put it, the word taonga comes to mean more and more across time, your expansion of the meaning of the word indigenous is similar.

    Yes, but worst example of drift in the meaning of words is “racist”, which in your case SPC means, “anyone I disagree with”. And obviously for you, SPC, the words ‘troll’ and ‘racist’ are interchangeable.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Johnboy (16,529 comments) says:

    “confusion of debates about Maori and the Treaty, welfare and the undeserving poor.”

    Possibly because of their own incompetence Murri have debated themselves into all those corners SPC.
    Most of us in NZ are getting bloody sick of listening to bludgers blaming all their ills on colonisation particularly as they seem utterly adapted to using all the attributes of modern society except for the attribute that suggests one should be responsible for ones own actions. I am definitely not responsible for a murri being a bloody useless parent or an equally useless citizen.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    @SPC

    The oath of allegiance is to the Crown of New Zealand

    So you think that the Crown is Elizabeth Windsor. OK, the term is ambiguous.

    We do not under the UK Crown

    If you think that the NZ Crown is Elizabeth Windsor, then shouldn’t the UK Crown be the same?

    There is no separation of church & state in England either. The prayer of parliament has relevance that is religious as well as cultural.

    An oath is an act of religion, and the oath of allegiance is made to the “Supreme Governor” of the state church. The Westminster system has purely religious roots.

    Because of Westminster the NZ state religion is Christianity, but freedom of religion does exist to a large degree.

    NZ’s link to the Anglican Church is via NZ’s head of state.

    I didn’t advance any conspiracy theory about the Zionist agenda. The relevance of Zionism is that the Balfour Declaration and the Palestinian Mandate both involved the UK.

    English common law is the basis of NZ common law, aka the law of the land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. kowtow (8,459 comments) says:

    SPC

    No expansion.

    My “indigenous” came straight out of the Oxford Dictionary. 11 th ed.

    Unlike some ,I don’t make shit up.

    May I offer you my heartiest contrafibularities.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. KevinH (1,227 comments) says:

    Oath of Allegiance (New Zealand)
    The Oath, in its present form, is:

    “I, [name], swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”

    All newly elected politicians are required to take the above oath when parliament resumes following a General Election.
    There have been attempts to modernise the oath however none have made it past the second reading.

    It is inevitable that as a result of the consultative work being undertaken by the Constitutional Review Panel that some elements of the Treaty of Waitangi will be incorporated into the New Zealand Constitution. What those elements will be remains to be seen, however following the release of the Panels recommendations the Government will draft a discussion paper for further public consultation and submissions, a process that will take several years to complete before it goes back to parliament for debate and ratification.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Submission. A yielding to authority; e.g. a citizen is bound to submit to the laws; a child to his parents. A contract between two or more parties whereby they agree to refer the subject in dispute to others and to be bound by their award. District of Columbia v. Bailey, 1 7 1 U.S. 161, 18 S.Ct. 868, 872, 43 L.Ed. 1 1 8. See also Arbitration; Mediation.
    Blacks 5th

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    kowtow, if those who are born here are indigenous, how come those with a British grandparent have preferential rights there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, so you think the Crown of New Zealand and the Crown of the United Kingdom are the same because the same person is in office in both? I am guessing (not really) you are not a lawyer.

    I will say this directly we have no state church and we have no state religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    It’s in subcultures that diversity exists in a multi-cultural society, I suppose in that sense Kiwiblog can demonstrate a subculture diversity from the more general public poll result mentioned above.

    It’s also true that Kiwiblog demonstrates how a subculture can rationalise a world view in accord with their own aspirations. Where facts have to be created to legitimise the aspiration.

    In that sense the settlers who wanted land in the mid 19th C and their government that delivered it to them can be better understood. It just goes to show how quickly colonists can forget the civilisation they came with and set an example the resent the locals then learning from and or remembering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    SPC,
    You didn’t answer my previous question, which was:

    If you think that the NZ Crown is Elizabeth Windsor, then shouldn’t the UK Crown be the same?

    Crown Definition:
    The English Monarch, where she is the symbolic head of state.
    http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/Crown.aspx

    There is a state church because the head of state is the “Supreme Governor” of the Anglican Church.
    One of the articles of religion (37 IIRC) has a direct bearing on the operation of the state, in that it prescribes universal jurisdiction of the judiciary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    So then SPC, help me out here. What WAS the Maori word for sovereignty in 1840?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    It is widely accepted that the use of the words ‘kawanatanga’ and ‘tino rangatiratanga’ (in Article 2) contributed to later differences of view between the Crown and Māori over how much authority the chiefs would retain and how much the governor would have. There can be little doubt that the chiefs who signed the Treaty expected to enter into some kind of partnership and power sharing in the new system.

    http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    No, UglyTruth, what you describe here is nothing like the 1840 situation. You describe here the 1994 revised version of history.

    Again, help me out here. What WAS the maori word for sovereignty in 1840?

    UglyTruth, your are very quick to ask others questions and to complain when others choose not to answer you. But have you ever once in your 522 comments so far, given a straight answer to a question yourself?

    So again, please help me out here. What WAS the maori word for sovereignty in 1840?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    He iwi tahi tatou
    If only we were.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth,

    1. That the same person is in Crown office in a number of countries does not transfer the legal situation in one to another.
    2. The NZ Crown and UK Crown are as separate from each other, as they are from the Crown of Australia and Crown of Canada.
    3. The relationship between the Crown in the UK and a state church there has no relevance here.
    4. We have no state church or religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    When I say state church I refer to the Church of England, the Anglican communion churches in Wales, Scotland and Ireland are not state churches. There is a state Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), but it does not have the person in Crown office as head.

    The head of the Anglican communion is the Arch Bishop of Canterbury. The Crown is only supreme governor of the Church of England.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    There is no single “Anglican Church” with universal juridical authority.
    Each national or regional church has full autonomy.
    Each church has its own legislative process and overall episcopal polity, under the leadership of a local primate.
    The Archbishop of Canterbury, religious head of the Church of England, has no formal authority outside that jurisdiction, but is recognised as symbolic head of the worldwide communion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    SPC,
    1. The term ‘Crown’ can refer to Elizabeth Windsor or to the corporation which represents the interests of the state. The legal situation in a particular country is called the Crown in right of that country, eg the Crown in right of New Zealand.
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_The_Crown
    2. There is no such thing as the NZ Crown & UK Crown.
    3. The relevance is due to the fact that the Crown is indivisible.
    4. The NZ state church is the Anglican church and has the Christrian religion because NZ’s head of state is the “Supreme Governor” of the Anglican church.

    Denying the obvious & inventing terms adds nothing to your argument. The Westminster system has religious roots so it follows that any government based on that system will have a religious element, unless it somehow separates the religious component, which it clearly hasn’t done, due to the religious role of the head of state, the state prayer, and the state oaths.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    There is no single “Anglican Church” with universal juridical authority.

    That’s true, but it doesn’t stop the idea from being implemented as a matter of faith.
    It’s a matter of fact that the state’s assumption of universal jurisdiction is consistent with the Anglican religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, the Crown is divisible – your own link says each realm is independent of the others. They can each at any time opt to choose different succession arrangements.

    The state oaths occur in the context of each realm, prayer is a cultural practice adopted from the English parliament, our parliament is not bound to continue with it and can amend this anytime they want to.

    And once more, the Crown is only Supreme Governor of the Church of England, not the Anglican communion nor any other church in the communion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, the Crown is divisible

    How do you propose to divide it?

    As a legal concept, it is a corporation whose sole officer is the Monarch of the Realms
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_The_Crown

    prayer is a cultural practice

    Again you refuse to acknowledge that prayer is also a religious practice.

    And once more, the Crown is only Supreme Governor of the Church of England, not the Anglican communion nor any other church in the communion.

    So what? The communion isn’t relevant to my argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    SWB,

    ‘kawanatanga’ was the term used in the Maori version (where the English version uses sovereignty), it is said to mean governance.

    ‘tino rangatiratanga’ is their term for chieftainship. It is said that they saw their own earlier rule/sovereignty (possession of their taonga) as their chieftainship.

    Did the Maori expect a Governor to rule over the settlers and manage the relations between them and Maori living on their land on some continuing independence? Of course this iwi independence was lost with loss of land.

    Their attempt to develop a bi-cultural nation is to retain chieftainship in this shared form – identity and place for the indigenous people.

    One thing is certain, iwi chiefs thought that iwi would continue to own their land and on their land they would have some continuing chieftainship/independence.

    As to constitutional change, I do not expect anything for about 30 years c 2040. I see it as a bi-centennial project – not one that needs to be rushed, people should be well ready for it by the time it is introduced.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, prayer in parliament is not proof there is a state church in that country.

    The Crown realms are separate, their laws are separate.

    The practice in one realm, where a the Church of England alone of the Anglican communions in the UK has the Crown as Supreme Governor has no relevance to the rest of the Anglican communion – nor any other realm.

    Why do you want to believe it is otherwise?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    SPC, the question was about how you propose to divide the Crown, since you say that it is divisible.
    The Crown and the realm are different things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Someone is stoned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    “Bullshit, UglyTruth. Like most, you conveniently forget that it was the natives who repeatedly asked to be colonised, and in so doing, the natives got a free pass into the greatest empire in the world at the time. Few of the natives have ever said thank you for the free pass.” ~ Silly Will Bunions

    Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.

    Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women’s breasts. They cut off inmates’ ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.

    Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    Thanks for the link UglyTruth. Of course the link is appropriate. I personally raped most of the Kenyans, while ripping off their testicles.

    And a favourite atrocity of Maori was to play basketball with white babies. Extra points were scored if the babies were caught on the end of a spear.

    We humans are well short of being perfect. Your point in a thread on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is? And your point in linking my nickname to this African crap is?

    You do know that Kenya is in Africa, don’t you, UglyTruth?

    And you do know that maori were cannibals, don’t you UglyTruth?

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