The New Zealand Head of State campaign

March 9th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The former Republican Movement has announced:

The Republican Movement is re-naming its entire campaign to make it clear that reforming New Zealand’s head of state is its number one priority. From now on the group will be campaigning under the banner ‘New Zealand Head of State’.

The new campaign Chair, Savage, said “the name-change will focus the wider debate on the specific reforms the group is advocating.”

“A republic can mean different things to different people so we’ve decided to make it very clear we are advocating a New Zealand republic and that a New Zealand republic involves taking the position of Governor-General and transitioning it into a democratically selected and politically neutral office.

“We will not leave the Commonwealth, we won’t be like the United States and it won’t change the legal status of the Treaty. Having our own head of state will resolve the contradictions inherent in having a foreign head of state. Most importantly it will make us constitutionally independent nation for the very first time.”

The British Queen or King will still be Head of the Commonwealth, and NZ would still be a Commonwealth country so we’d still get royal visits in the future even if we have our own New Zealand Head of State.

“Our criteria for a head of state is very clear. Only a New Zealander can be a New Zealand’s head of State and the only fair way to choose that person is through democratic selection. 

Change is unlikely soon, but it will happen!

Tags:

134 Responses to “The New Zealand Head of State campaign”

  1. Southern Raider (1,777 comments) says:

    What a waste of time. Surely these people have something better to do with there lives. On the list of priorities for NZ this must be around number 198,653

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. George Patton (352 comments) says:

    The campaign is in the hands of someone only known as “Savage”?

    Good luck with that one.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. tas (655 comments) says:

    Why do we need a local head of state? I love the queen. She never causes trouble.

    We don’t need another politican who feels the need to make themselves “useful.”

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. gazzmaniac (2,306 comments) says:

    Only a New Zealander can be a New Zealand’s head of State and the only fair way to choose that person is through democratic selection.

    Except that every elected official in this country takes it upon themselves to push the boundaries of their power.
    As much as I am not a fan of the royal family, I haven’t seen a model that I am happy with to replace it.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. lolitasbrother (774 comments) says:

    quote ”
    A republic can mean different things to different people so we’ve decided to make it very clear we are advocating a New Zealand republic and that a New Zealand republic involves taking the position of Governor-General and transitioning it into a democratically selected and politically neutral office ”

    So what we are doing is promoting a republic,
    but we are not a republican movement we are a dicky head of State movement. I agree with above comments

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. dog_eat_dog (787 comments) says:

    Another position for some end-of-the-line politico to get bumped into, no matter what their transgressions while in power.

    You’re just replacing one royal family with another ruling elite who are already above criticism, even in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Fletch (6,532 comments) says:

    Head Of State, sounds like a foot-in-the-door to a republic. They still want the same thing but a name change makes it sound less threatening.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. iMP (2,457 comments) says:

    The Queen upholds and supports NZ democracy DPF. And besides, the monarch was thereBEFORE democracy in NZ, even NZ, so quite happy with current Head of State thanks, and the hundreds of years of collective wisdom, political evolution and common sense that has accorded us.

    Why replace that with an ex-All Black or other icon-ised NZ media-cretated celebrity?
    (Squash Player as Race Relations Conciliator, anyone?)

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Manolo (14,179 comments) says:

    Yes, NZ needs ancient Bolger, socialists Clark and Cullen, or the insufferable wowser Palmer as head of the state as a bullet in the head.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. ChardonnayGuy (1,232 comments) says:

    Exactly what’s wrong with having an elected New Zealander as head of state rather than an undemocratic hereditary figure who lives on the other side of the world?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. gazzmaniac (2,306 comments) says:

    There is no way the office will stay politically neutral for a start.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    “…..“A republic can mean different things to different people so we’ve decided to make it very clear we are advocating a New Zealand republic and that a New Zealand republic involves taking the position of Governor-General and transitioning it into a democratically selected and politically neutral office.“

    “We will not leave the Commonwealth, we won’t be like the United States and it won’t change the legal status of the Treaty…………..”

    So nothing is allowed to be argued for at all – no debate – nothing!

    Just change the Head of State every few years instead of doing what we currently do; change the head of State’s representitive in NZ every few years. – WOW!

    What a fucken waste of time.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. edhunter (554 comments) says:

    Sally Ridge for El Presidante!!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. BlairM (2,340 comments) says:

    I think this is a good move. Personally I have no issue with the Queen being NZ’s titular Head of State, and I don’t think it needs to change. But I do think we need a Governor General who is independent of the Prime Minister and is accountable not to him or her, but to the people of New Zealand by democratic vote.

    At the very least, a Prime Minister should have no power to depose a Governor General.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Nope, dead against it. Cannot think of one current New Zealander that deserves or is capable of such a position.
    There are some that are capable of being a Governor General, but that is an entirely different position.

    We can’t even produce a set of decent politicians – lets sort that mess out first.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. kowtow (8,945 comments) says:

    They want a republic but want to entrench the ‘legal status of the Treaty”,which is exactly what?

    So biff the monarch but entrench the other half of that deal. Good luck with that!

    Res public……public issues should be open to the public.

    Therefor lets have a referendum on the Crown and the treaty.That would sort the legal status of the treaty once and for all.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. big bruv (14,224 comments) says:

    “Change is unlikely soon, but it will happen!”

    Not in your, or my lifetime DPF.

    Imagine it?

    John Hatfield as HOS?

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    The point of this is what/
    So some in the beltway can feel like we are ” a big country”.

    I like my country and flag the way they are for better or worse, cosmetic changes wanted by people who have too much time on their hands will do nothing.

    One economic benefit that will be garnered by ditching the Queen as HoS.?
    One improvement in our crrime statistics?
    One improvement to our health or education systems ?

    Elitist wankers

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    Sounds like a sensible approach. We should be given the choice if something like this is what the majority want or not. That’s democracy, in contrast to those who don’t want it discussed because they don’t want any change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. greybeard (63 comments) says:

    Stuff that nonsense.
    God save the Queen.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. David Garrett (7,701 comments) says:

    This is such a non issue…as Southern Raider says, well down the list of priorities.

    An elected Head of State (HOS) would inevitably be tainted by party politics…even if ex politicians were ineligible. Royal visits if we had an elected HOS? I don’t think so…not that that concerns me either way.

    BlairM: You have it the wrong way round; as things stand – and would presumably continue if we had an elected HOS – the Governor General can dismiss the Prime Minister, not the other way around. That is part of the point of having a HOS; a person above and independent from party politics who can, in emergency, dismiss the government and call an election.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. eszett (2,450 comments) says:

    Judith (5,084 comments) says:
    March 9th, 2014 at 11:50 am
    Nope, dead against it. Cannot think of one current New Zealander that deserves or is capable of such a position.

    Really? Can’t think of anyone in NZ with better qualifications than Prince Charles?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. dime (10,222 comments) says:

    “Change is unlikely soon, but it will happen!”

    Yep. take the left wing approach. a vocal minority hammering away, year after year. at some point they will get a bit of momentum, a few newspapers will get on board, a few bloggers.. it will change.

    then the question about whether we go back to how it was will never be asked.

    “progress”.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. NZpatriot (5 comments) says:

    What nonsense.

    Firstly, what is a candidate for a quote “politically neutral office” even meant to campaign?

    Secondly, New Zealand enjoys highly functional and established constitutional arrangements. Changing it only risks setting up something worse, an example: iwi probably being given special privileges in setting up the structure and in electing the new head of state.

    Besides, the Sovereign as Head of State is an integral part of our heritage (no matter how much some may wish it weren’t) of which we should be damned proud.

    God Save the Queen.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    …well down the list of priorities.

    Haha, of course it’s “well down the list of priorities” for those who want to retain a symbolic head of state who’s entrenched on the other side of the world and who never comes here.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Warren Murray (316 comments) says:

    Rebranded sh*t is still sh*t.

    And to top it all, they come out with this just before a royal tour. Not too bright.

    Long live the Queen and the Kingdom of New Zealand

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Longknives (4,968 comments) says:

    President for life Hone ‘Mugabe’ Harawira…
    God save our Queen!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Paulus (2,712 comments) says:

    The thought of Helen Clark as President fills me with horror.

    But it is OK because it would be so beneath her dignity – phew !

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. spanish_tudor (84 comments) says:

    Three simple words to explain why New Zealand will not become a republic within the next 60-70 years:

    President. Helen. Clark.

    Reading that back… it’s like that feeling you get when someone supposedly walks over your grave….

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. ChardonnayGuy (1,232 comments) says:

    Why not President Jim Bolger? President Katherine Rich? President…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. David Garrett (7,701 comments) says:

    Some very good comments there…especially from neophyte commenter NZ Patriot…Welcome sir/madam.

    There is a great deal of value in that old cliche “If it aint broke, don’t fix it.” We have had a very long history of non partisan Governor’s General who have served us very well. Can anyone think of one who did anything divisive, or one who became widely unpopular? Even Sir Keith Holyoake, whose appointment so soon after being active politics raised eyebrows, IIRC completed his term without any controversy.

    As for those who say the HOS is someone “on the far side of the world”, while that is technically true, the Governor General – by now well established convention always a New Zealander – is for all intents and purposes the HOS here. If there was a very serious political crisis next month or next year, can anyone seriously imagine Sir Gerry Mataparae ringing the palace for instructions?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. flipper (4,332 comments) says:

    But…. But…. Butttttttt…

    We already have a ” New Zealand Head of State” David.

    Don’t we?????

    We have the “Maori King” … His Royal Highness King Whastsakuckmucky. in Turangawotnot…. or thereabouts

    Anyone who wastes time and energy on this nonsense is in need of help. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. wiseowl (980 comments) says:

    Yup.Waste of time.
    I am sick of these holier than thou people who keep harping on about trying to change history.

    If you don’t like it here go to the Sudan or Uganda anywhere, just leave those of us that are proud of our history,proud of our country, proud of what we have ,leave us to keep building our nation with the strong building blocks that have seen us through so far.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. big bruv (14,224 comments) says:

    Shudder….

    Imagine this…………… President Peter Dunne!!

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Inky_the_Red (764 comments) says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMxqcgBhWQ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Besides, the Sovereign as Head of State is an integral part of our heritage (no matter how much some may wish it weren’t) of which we should be damned proud.

    Only if you are blissfully ignorant of the dark history of the house of Windsor.

    The Anglican church, who traditionally has a “supreme governor” from the house of Windsor, was one a group of churches who were involved in a program of “religious education” which involved the deaths of an estimated 50000 children over a period of about 100 years. Some of the children were subjected to sexual abuse, some were tortured, and some were murdered. Today the state of Canada recognises this as an act of genocide, and has engaged the survivors (their term) in a “Truth and Reconciliation” process.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/what-canada-committed-against-first-nations-was-genocide-the-un-should-recognize-it/article14853747/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. s.russell (1,650 comments) says:

    At a stroke they have transformed me from a supporter to a strong opponent.

    I support NZ becoming a republic but I think electing a head of state is a foolish and dangerous idea. It will result not in neutral “presidents” but in partisan politicians getting the job with mandates to interfere in Government, undermining a constitutional arrangement that works well.

    NZ is already a republic for all practical purposes. Formally becoming one would be a cosmetic and symbolic change only. Electing a head of state would be a real and dangerous change.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    “well down the list of priorities”

    Yeah……just like prostitution, gay marriage and smacking all were.

    A Labour government would help change to a NZ HOS within it’s first term – as the current MP’s are the very same ones that gave us prostitution ect………..and are the very same ones again that got rid of Knighthoods and replaced them with NZ titles.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    “……Only if you are blissfully ignorant of the dark history of the house of Windsor….”

    Or the house of Maori.

    Keep it honest.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. grumpyoldhori (2,205 comments) says:

    The most prosperous countries tend to be Monarchies so why the hell do we want to change ?
    So which old hack of a politician should we elect as El Presidente ?

    http://www.fastcoexist.com/3021060/visualized/these-10-countries-are-the-most-prosperous-in-the-world-and-they-dont-include-the

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. MT_Tinman (3,322 comments) says:

    it won’t change the legal status of the Treaty

    Assuming you mean the treaty between Queen Victoria and some Northern tribes you lost me right there.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    WHAT IS THE POINT

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Bad__Cat (141 comments) says:

    Where does it say we have to accept Charles as our next sovereign?

    We can decide that William or Harry is our next monarch. BTW, I’d prefer Harry.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    “what is the point?”

    Vanity.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    This is just another example of arrogant and clueless liberal elites pushing a policy that the majority do not want. Not a single poll shows republicanism in the majority, not one. And in fact recent polls show a swing back to the monarchy. Yet liberal elites constantly tell us that this is inevitable. “Change WILL happen! You WILL obey us! We know best!”

    Bollocks.

    Keep the monarchy. A political head of state is a monumentally stupid idea being pushed by the usual suspects.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    “Hi. I believe in smaller, more efficient government, less taxes, and less political interference in peoples lives. As my first policy I intend to add a whole new level of government bureaucracy and political interference in peoples lives, paid for by more taxes.”

    David, seriously, stop drinking the Liberal koolaid. It’s addling your brain.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. alloytoo (582 comments) says:

    “democratically selected and politically neutral”

    Oxymoron.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Fentex (1,138 comments) says:

    In the occasional discussions about flags and a New Zealand republic it has struck me that the presumption of a head of state ought be challenged. if we are to, why don’t we, ditch the Governor General along with the Monarch?

    Why is there any need for a ‘Head of State’ at all? Doesn’t it seem a little like a pointless vestige of feudalism?

    Once there’s a constitutional basis for governance to honour and obey, what need a person to distract from it’s principles?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. eszett (2,450 comments) says:

    Bad__Cat (113 comments) says:
    March 9th, 2014 at 1:49 pm
    Where does it say we have to accept Charles as our next sovereign?

    Well, we have to accept anyone who becomes the next monarch.
    That’s the whole point.

    We currently have no say whatsoever who becomes our HOS.

    What astonishes me is that people bring up Helen Clark as a possible HOS in a republic, a highly unlikely possibility, when the real scary prospect of having Prince Charles as HOS is only a heartbeat away.

    Besides, what’s to stop the next Labour PM installing Helen Clark as our GG? Nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Keep it honest.

    What is dishonest about about pointing out the house of Windsor’s history of involvement in the Canadian genocide?

    “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation” ~ Philip Windsor

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Once there’s a constitutional basis for governance to honour and obey, what need a person to distract from it’s principles?

    Why should the head of state be a person? A man without rank could be an effective head of state.

    person: A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and or being charged with duties, while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised. (Black’s 2nd (1910))

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    “What is dishonest about about pointing out the house of Windsor’s history of involvement in the Canadian genocide?”

    The fact that the house of Windsor had no involvement in the first place. The Crown is head of the Church only in a purely symbolic fashion. She/He has no influence on policy or actions. The fault was the Churches alone, and the fact that the Crown is a symbolic head of the Church does not make it responsible for the actions the Church takes.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    The issue of Prince Charles becoming King is irrelevant. He may be an eccentric who talks to plants and has some whacky ideas (plus some good ones) but he does not set policy in NZ, or in the UK.

    I would rather have a whacky eccentric as head of state than some colorless politically correct drone.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    The fact that the house of Windsor had no involvement in the first place.

    If you’re head of an organisation which is involved in criminal activity and you don’t oppose it then you’re complicit. I don’t accept that they were ignorant of what was going on there.

    http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/the-queen-and-missing-kids/

    The man who claimed to witness “the abduction of ten fellow residential school children by the Queen of England and her husband in October, 1964 at the Catholic school in Kamloops, B.C. has died suddenly…

    “William Combes, age 59 and in good health, was scheduled to be a primary witness at the opening session of the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (ITCCS) on September 12 in London…

    “After awhile, I saw the Queen leave the picnic with ten children from the school, and those kids never returned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. southtop (251 comments) says:

    Of interest to me will be the potential shift in public opinion when mad prince Charles is king?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. eszett (2,450 comments) says:

    I would rather have a whacky eccentric as head of state than some colorless politically correct drone.

    Fair enough, but wouldn’t you want to have some sort of say in this, however indirectly and remotely.

    The point being, that right now, we as a nation, have no say whatsoever of who becomes our HOS. Whether it is a whacky eccentric, as you prefer, or a colourless pc drone.

    And if too whacky, wouldn’t even you wnat a prospect of a change, and not have that person there for decades?

    The argument that you don’t want a change because you might not like the person who get’s that position is completely asinine.

    A) you could equally get someone you don’t like today and B) by that argument you could equally apply to any other position.
    Why is the possibility of a colourless PC drone as PM okay, but not as a HOS?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    “democratically selected and politically neutral”

    Oxymoron.

    So select the candidate on the basis of reason rather than by popular vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Fentex (1,138 comments) says:

    The Crown is head of the Church only in a purely symbolic fashion. She/He has no influence on policy or actions. The fault was the Churches alone, and the fact that the Crown is a symbolic head of the Church does not make it responsible for the actions the Church takes.

    While in reality there is no responsibility without authority as the two are intertwined it seems a little improper to excuse and forgive people who enjoy privilege from title and prestige from all accountability by the office they are pleased to hold and benefit from simply because they accept only the good but forgo responsibility.

    If they don’t want to be aligned and held jointly accountable with an organization they shouldn’t accept even nominal leadership of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Besides, what’s to stop the next Labour PM installing Helen Clark as our GG?

    Her refusal to accept the position. Or are you suggesting that she would cast aside her principles and stated positions just to get the power?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Fentex (1,138 comments) says:

    The issue of Prince Charles becoming King is irrelevant. He may be an eccentric who talks to plants and has some whacky ideas (plus some good ones) but he does not set policy in NZ, or in the UK.

    This seems to be an opinion predicated on the concept of a politically neutral monarch in the U.K. That is a fantasy evidenced most recently by Charles ‘Black Spider’ memos where he has harassed ministers with suggestions and instructions. They are not published apparently for fear of public backlash to his interfering and one suspects the possible consequences should it be demonstrated that ministers were swayed by them.

    By and large NZ has no involvement with the Windsors, and one day the pretence of a relationship will be abandoned, with as much disregard as care for Charles unpopularity I expect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    Fentex,

    “While in reality there is no responsibility without authority as the two are intertwined”
    The authority in question are the Bishops, not the Crown. The Crown has no authority in the Church.

    “it seems a little improper to excuse and forgive people who enjoy privilege from title and prestige from all accountability”

    Not if they are in fact not responsible, as they are not the relevant authority. The Crown is not the equivalent of the Pope in the RC. The Crown’s headship is purely symbolic, it is the Bishops who are the relevant authority responsible.

    “If they don’t want to be aligned and held jointly accountable with an organization they shouldn’t accept even nominal leadership of it.”

    They don’t. The Crown is not in any “leadership” nominal or otherwise.

    “By and large NZ has no involvement with the Windsors,”

    So what?

    “and one day the pretense of a relationship will be abandoned”

    It’s not a pretense. Most New Zealander’s have an abiding devotion to the monarchy. That devotion is a real relationship, not a pretense.

    eszett,

    “Fair enough, but wouldn’t you want to have some sort of say in this, however indirectly and remotely.”

    No. None at all. I think the idea that everyone has to have a say is absurd. But to lay my cards on the table, I am profoundly anti-democratic to begin with.

    “And if too whacky, wouldn’t even you wnat a prospect of a change, and not have that person there for decades?”

    No. With actual authorities, yes, to some degree. But with a constitutionally limited monarchy that plays a largely symbolic role, there is no need.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    Ugly “Truth”

    If all you have is unproven conspiracy theories, you have no argument. Elvis is dead. There is no ufo in Area 51. JFK was shot by one man. And the Queen does not go around abducting children.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    Various NZ government departments have sometimes broken the law, and done bad things. On the basis of Fentex and Ugly Truth’s argument, nobody should therefore be Prime Minister, as that makes them personally responsible for being part of a criminal organisation.

    That of course, is absurd.

    The Queen is head of the Anglican Communion, a large and varied global body. That parts of the Church may have at times done bad things, does not make the entire Communion a criminal organisation, nor does it make the Queen in any way personally responsible.

    Finally, arguments about our constitutional arrangements are too important to be dragged down to the level of the tin foil hat brigade.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. DJP6-25 (1,390 comments) says:

    wiseowl 12.49. But… but…. but……… being proud of your history and culture is waaaaacist if you’re not from a socialist approved ethnic/racial group.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    …being proud of your history and culture …

    I’m proud of my history and my culture, and all of it that I’m aware of is in New Zealand. I have ancestors from England and Wales but they came here to get away from those places and left them behind them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. eszett (2,450 comments) says:

    No. None at all. I think the idea that everyone has to have a say is absurd. But to lay my cards on the table, I am profoundly anti-democratic to begin with.

    Well, if you don’t want a say and you are so anti-democratic, why are you participating in this discussion at all?
    A bit contradictory, don ‘t you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Nostradamus (2,439 comments) says:

    UglyTruth:

    Why should the head of state be a person?

    Yes, indeed, why should the head of state be a person?

    Who would you suggest we have instead then?

    Some suggestions:

    – an alien
    – a living fish
    – a dead fish
    – Dr Who’s TARDIS
    – a telephone
    – an oompa loompa
    – one of Philu’s full stops.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    And the Queen does not go around abducting children.

    Two words, ShawnLH: magic bullet

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/jfk-magic-bullet-president-kennedy-assassination_n_4317369.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Various NZ government departments have sometimes broken the law, and done bad things. On the basis of Fentex and Ugly Truth’s argument, nobody should therefore be Prime Minister, as that makes them personally responsible for being part of a criminal organisation.

    You misread my argument. If Key was acting against the crime then he would not be complicit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. gazzmaniac (2,306 comments) says:

    I think that if Prince William was made GG for a couple of years the Republican movement would go away.

    Uglytruth – the “magic bullet” behaved exactly as is should have. It was fired from the Book Repository building which was behind and above the car, it passed through JFK’s shoulder, and hit the governer further down his body. It would have been magic if it did that after being fired from the Grassy Knoll.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    It would have been magic if it did that after being fired from the Grassy Knoll.

    It would have been magic if it did all that and ended up in “as-new” condition.

    Oh wait, it did.

    http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_NARA_Evidence_-_Magic_Bullet

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. gazzmaniac (2,306 comments) says:

    How much distortion do you think a bullet undergoes if it passes through flesh and soft foam?
    The answer is sweet F.A. JFK was killed by a lone gunman, but one wonders whether he was part of a greater conspiracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    How much distortion do you think a bullet undergoes if it passes through flesh and soft foam?

    “… passed through Kennedy’s back/neck and then broke a rib and shattered the wrist of Governor Connally.” (from Mary Ferrell’s page)

    A rib isn’t “flesh and soft foam”, and broken bones are more than likely in a shattered wrist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. calendar girl (1,259 comments) says:

    @Pete George 12:30pm: “…. those who want to retain a symbolic head of state who’s entrenched on the other side of the world and who never comes here.”

    You know that that’s simply not true. The Queen has visited New Zealand on ten occasions: 1953-1954, 1963, 1970, 1974, 1977, 1981, 1986, 1990, 1995 and 2002: https://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/NewZealand/Royalvisits.aspx . That in addition to having a full-time constitutional representative here in the person of the Governor-General.

    Given the great travel distances from the UK, and the fact that the Queen will be 88 next month (last visited when she was about 76), it misrepresents her direct and personal engagement with this country to claim that she “never comes here”. Moreover, as she has aged over the years, multiple visits have been made in her place by other members of the Royal Family.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay nailed this earlier today:

    One economic benefit that will be garnered by ditching the Queen as HoS.?
    One improvement in our crrime statistics?
    One improvement to our health or education systems ?

    We’re all better off focusing on the things that matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    Essetz.

    “Well, if you don’t want a say and you are so anti-democratic, why are you participating in this discussion at all?
    A bit contradictory, don ‘t you think?”

    No. I am participating because I support the monarchy. That I do want a say in. But I do not want nor need to have a say in some democratically elected PC drone. We already have enough of those, far too many in fact.

    What do you think will happen if everyone gets a say? Maori will insist that he or she is Maori. Feminists will demand a women (ignoring the irony that we already have one). Homosexuals will demand someone who is pro-gay….. and on and on it will go. The whole thing will turn into a political circus and what will result is mediocrity at it’s worse, and we will have ditched the majesty, tradition and history of the monarchy.

    Let’s keep one thing at least in which we honour real values; tradition, hierarchy, nobility, vocation. The toilet bowl of modern NZ politics has already dragged everything else, including marriage, into the gutter.

    As far as politics in general goes, democracy is what we currently have, so I participate in order to hopefully mitigate the evils that flow from democracy by helping to keep the lesser of evils in power and the worst out. But it is not remotely my ideal situation.

    Ugly Truth,

    I have three words for you. Tin. Foil. Hat.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    “You know that that’s simply not true. The Queen has visited New Zealand on ten occasions”

    Pete often has trouble with facts. They get in the way of the Liberal goal of turning NZ into lowest common denominator banana republic in which values are whatever the mob votes.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Scott (1,808 comments) says:

    The Queen is fantastic. If we have a local head of state be absolutely assured a Labour government would install Helen Clarke as President of New Zealand.
    The only thing worse would be as someone brought up on this thread would be President Peter Dunne! Oh the horror!!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    The Queen has visited New Zealand on ten occasions: 1953-1954, 1963, 1970, 1974, 1977, 1981, 1986, 1990, 1995 and 2002:

    Last visit was twelve years ago. It’s likely she will never be back. A head of state that is able to be here occasionally would be good. Relations don’t count. Would it be ok if the Governor General moved to Australia and sent his grandkids to visit every few years?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    “What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty.”

    Hanse-Hermann Hoppe

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    “Last visit was twelve years ago.”

    So your first statement was a lie Pete? Or just plain ignorance of the facts?

    There is no valid reason why a head of state has to actually reside here.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Michael (913 comments) says:

    As the Queen is approaching 90, it’s probably unlikely she’ll visit anywhere outside of Britain again. I suspect though Charles will never visit as King either as he will probably be nearly 80 when he becomes King. But Royal retirement is a different issue. It may be that William will be the first King to abdicate/retire at a certain age.

    I’m moderately in favour of retaining the British Royal Family as our titular head of state as we can better leverage them on the world stage than a domestic president. And also that we will have an apolitical head who will always act on Parliament’s instructions.

    Having said that, if the Republican Movement was able to obtain a change through a robust, democratic process then I wouldn’t be overly worried by the change.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    I have three words for you. Tin. Foil. Hat.

    Get back to me when you can put them in a sentence which makes a rational statement about conspiracy theory.

    You denied that the house of Windsor was involved with the church and its genocide, yet Elizabeth Windsor is called the “supreme governor” of the Anglican church, and that church was unquestionably involved in the Canadian “experience”, as it is euphemistically called.

    You say that JFK was shot by one man, yet you have no answer for the impossibility of the “magic bullet” explanation of the Warren Commission.

    And speaking of UFO’s…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. nasska (12,111 comments) says:

    Well, we can’t risk any “perversion of truth, justice and beauty” Shawn so that means democracy will no longer be a permitted form of government. Leaves a small problem of what to replace it with.

    I know!….lets go back in time (say six or seven centuries) to a feudal system with an hereditary monarchy, only subject to or influenced by the meddling of the Church. It would mirror the Islamic regimes & even up the odds of a win next time the Koran bashers piss you off enough to organise another crusade.

    That will keep the trash in line & the moral standards high….even though it might be a hard sell to get the punters onside.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,705 comments) says:

    Be careful what you wish for.

    You might finish up with an idiot like Cunliffe as your head of state.

    Would serve you right.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Fentex (1,138 comments) says:

    nobody should therefore be Prime Minister, as that makes them personally responsible for being part of a criminal organisation.

    It is nice when politicians are held accountable for the acts of their departments.

    By the way I know nothing about the crimes accused that spawned the question of accountability by figureheads and didn’t suggest they have some accountability because i meant to say they would be criminally liable in that instance. But regarding the point of Prime Ministers – yes, there are crimes governments may commit that should spell the end of any Ministers career.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. nasska (12,111 comments) says:

    Unless there was a provision that excluded anyone who had ever stood for parliament from being president it is inevitable that the position will be choked by a failed retired politician. I can’t think of many of the current lot who I’d be totally happy to see in the role.

    The monarchy works & its free…..don’t meddle with what doesn’t need fixing.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth ,the Magic Bullet theory demolished by a Single Bullet fact,

    https://www.facebook.com/Michael.Brant.Shermer/posts/10151671209021386

    Also an excellant discussion as to why people find it difficult to accept the fact that a man of great consequence was felled by a man of great inconsequence.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    President W Peters.
    :lol:
    Imagine the ho ha the fellers could generate around our very own head of state.
    They would drive bird species over the brink of extinction just for the cloak, The tribes will be fighting over who’s going to supply the pres twat with a big carved club and a green stone rock the size of whoever wants the jobs ego for around the neck.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    don’t meddle with what doesn’t need fixing.

    Child abuse by religious elites should ring some bells – religious schools which commit acts of genocide are of course guilty of child abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. gazzmaniac (2,306 comments) says:

    How does that relate to the current constitutional arrangements?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. nasska (12,111 comments) says:

    Some of God’s Groupies have been up for a bit of boy bothering UT but which sect are you associating with child abuse through genocide?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    Why we should doubt the video of the UFO over the Ukraine. One amongst many was that it was published/ posted some weeks after the event. Any ordinary member of the public or journalist would of uploaded it almost immediately.

    http://ufos.about.com/b/2010/07/28/video-ufo-over-ukraine.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    which sect are you associating with child abuse through genocide?

    Church of England (Anglican) & Roman Catholic.

    From my 1:00pm post:

    The Anglican church, who traditionally has a “supreme governor” from the house of Windsor, was one a group of churches who were involved in a program of “religious education” which involved the deaths of an estimated 50000 children over a period of about 100 years. Some of the children were subjected to sexual abuse, some were tortured, and some were murdered. Today the state of Canada recognises this as an act of genocide, and has engaged the survivors (their term) in a “Truth and Reconciliation” process.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/what-canada-committed-against-first-nations-was-genocide-the-un-should-recognize-it/article14853747/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    You been sipping some mighty fine moon juice there UT.

    The monarchy is cheap and not in our faces (unless you read the daily mail et al and womans titillating celebrity gossip )
    Alas when big ears takes the reign his obvious membership of the interbreed aristocracy will leave the institution in tatters.
    The time is near. God save the Queen !

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    How does that relate to the current constitutional arrangements?

    What it means is that the current arrangements are largely based on fictions, i.e. the head of state is not a true sovereign and the ability of parliament to make law is also fictional.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Daigotsu (471 comments) says:

    I know this is your hobby horse DPF but it’s high time you faced the facts.

    It doesn’t matter what you call your little movement.

    New Zealanders don’t want a change.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    New Zealanders don’t want a change.

    Some do, some don’t, some won’t care either way.

    How do you know how many for and against without debating it and measuring what New Zealanders want?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. gazzmaniac (2,306 comments) says:

    What it means is that the current arrangements are largely based on fictions, i.e. the head of state is not a true sovereign and the ability of parliament to make law is also fictional.

    Funny, the Crown seems like it is a true sovereign to me, both in law and in fact. Parliament certainly has the ability to make laws and it exercises that ability far too often for my liking.

    I think you’re nuts.

    How do you know how many for and against without debating it and measuring what New Zealanders want?

    The community sentiment is measured several times per year in polls. The results are a fairly constant in favour of not changing the monarchy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. BlairM (2,340 comments) says:

    I really wasn’t prepared for 11 down votes simply for suggesting that the Governor General should be elected by the people and not appointed by the Prime Minister. Seriously?!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    With JFK

    the zapruder film

    was altered to make the shot appear it came from another direction?

    They have analysed it some one retouched the frames of the head wound

    Look at who JFK had “pissed off ” in the banking community
    and look into the Federal reserve there is only one bunch of people
    that can do this and get away with it and no it was not the CIA or Mafia

    It is pretty obvious

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    Wonderful as a republic might be

    There comes the issuer of “defence”

    I personally think the whole of the Pacific Region Aus NZ entire pacific should operate like a Republic

    it should have been set up after WW2

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Grant (286 comments) says:

    @Ugly Truth…

    ““William Combes, age 59 and in good health, was scheduled to be a primary witness at the opening session of the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (ITCCS) on September 12 in London…

    “After awhile, I saw the Queen leave the picnic with ten children from the school, and those kids never returned.”

    Are you seriously suggesting that you believe that Queen Elizabeth personally murdered ten children? Really?
    So what did she do UT? Whip out her Glock and do them NKVD style? Or did she drop her stockings and strangle them with those?
    Seriously, I struggle to believe that there are people like you in our communities.
    I hope you’re not in charge of anything remotely important.

    G

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Scott1 (592 comments) says:

    BlairM,
    Yes – it is nice to be a democracy, but it would be foolish for us to elect every single person. If the head of state is just a rubber stamp position then it would degrade our system to elect him.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Funny, the Crown seems like it is a true sovereign to me, both in law and in fact.

    Yeah, a legacy of dead children under your watch makes for an excellent sovereign.

    Parliament certainly has the ability to make laws…

    There’s nothing supporting that statement but blind faith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Are you seriously suggesting that you believe that Queen Elizabeth personally murdered ten children? Really?

    It would be consistent with the genocide that continued under her watch and with her family’s associations with paedophiles Jimmy Savile, Loius “Dickie” Mountbatten and George Mountbatten.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. jcuk (760 comments) says:

    The UK survived a mad George I’m sure a mad Charles will not phase it unduely.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    Naaska,

    “Well, we can’t risk any “perversion of truth, justice and beauty” Shawn so that means democracy will no longer be a permitted form of government. Leaves a small problem of what to replace it with.”

    Minarchism/Anarchism and the non-aggression principle. I don’t think there are any Libertarian Islamic nations.

    Silly boy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    “Child abuse by religious elites should ring some bells”

    Child abusers, by the very nature of their illness, gravitate to any institution that allows them access to children, including, sadly, churches, but also schools, hospitals, government depts, and oh, what was that other one? Oh yeah, the BBC.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    “What it means is that the current arrangements are largely based on fictions, i.e. the head of state is not a true sovereign and the ability of parliament to make law is also fictional.”

    Wow, that is just unhinged. Were you beamed up to the mothership UT? Did the Greys probe your butt? It seems to have affected you somewhat.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    Pete George, who apparently was beamed up into one of UT’s motherships as well, opines:

    With regards to change….

    “Some do, some don’t, some won’t care either way.

    How do you know how many for and against without debating it and measuring what New Zealanders want?”

    Seriously Pete?

    Now you may want to sit down for this as it will be a wee bit of a shock. But we in NZ have these things called polls, in which public opinion is measured.We have been polling on this issue for over ten years at least. Every single poll has shown a strong majority against change.

    And we have been debating this for twenty years at least. Most Kiwis still do not want change, by a widening margin.

    There are three possibilities with regards to your statement above.

    Your lying. Your ignorant of what has been a well polled and well debated issue. Your just plain stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Grant (286 comments) says:

    So you do think that she personally killed them then UT?

    Yes or No?
    G

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    ShawnLH: I haven’t seen a comprehensive debate about the issue. Where has that been done?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Grant, I don’t know. Her husband has made some seriously racist and anti-life statements, and the Windsor family history makes for some grim reading. Her involvement with the genocide of these people and the testimony of the witness who named her and her husband makes for a reasonable prima facie case against them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    Pete,

    “I haven’t seen a comprehensive debate about the issue. Where has that been done?”

    In New Zealand. That’s the country you live in by the way. I remember this being fiercely debated and polled as far back as Jim Bolger being PM.

    Your statements are not remotely credible. I suspect your now going to trot out some definition of “comprehensive” which conveniently ignores all polls and previous debates, but the truth is that we have been debating and polling on this issue for a very long time.

    Do you have very long periods of hibernation?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Grant (286 comments) says:

    Thanks for your reply UT.

    I’ll take that as a no.
    G

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    Heres a response to Pete’s “some will, some won’t, some won’t care” bullshit.

    “Popularity of monarchy soars in New Zealand.

    The popularity of the monarchy has surged in New Zealand since the royal wedding, with a big fall in the number of people expecting the country to become a republic.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/8491525/Popularity-of-monarchy-soars-in-New-Zealand.html

    The latest poll, from the Republican web site:

    Latest poll results: 52% Charles, 40% New Zealand head of State

    The Sunday Star-Times reports on our most recent polling result. The headline number has barely changed: 52% want Charles as our head of State when the Queen’s reign ends, while 40% want a New Zealand citizen.

    NBR ONLINE readers are overwhelmingly in favour of retaining a constitutional monarchy in New Zealand.

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/poll-nbr-readers-whether-nz-should-become-republic-ca-132499

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Wow, that is just unhinged. Were you beamed up to the mothership UT?

    What makes your position so untenable, ShawnLH, is that you say that the house of Windsor has no involvement in the Canadian genocide despite the fact that the “supreme governor” of one of the churches involved is from that house. To make matters worse you have no answer to the problem of the impossible “magic bullet” explanation of the Warren Commission re the JFK assassination when you presented the implied argument that there is no problem with the head of state because large-scale conspiracies eg JFK so not exist.

    The fiction of parliamentary sovereignty is tied to the fiction of the sovereignty of the head of state. Sovereignty involves the right to govern, and the house of Windsor proclaims this as “dieu et mon droit”, ie divine right. Because of the connection between the house of Windsor and the Church of England, this right can be examined within the context of Christianity, which makes it clear that hypocrites have no place within the divine kingdom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Pete George (23,833 comments) says:

    ShawnLH:

    Every single poll has shown a strong majority against change.

    Your statements are not remotely credible. I suspect your now going to trot out some definition of “comprehensive” which conveniently ignores all polls and previous debates, but the truth is that we have been debating and polling on this issue for a very long time.

    Latest poll results: 52% Charles, 40% New Zealand head of State

    52-40 is not a comprehensive majority for something that has only been casually debated and is fickle depending on the news. Of course support for the monarchy will rise following the glamour of a wedding. I don’t expect the same to happen when the Queen eventually dies.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Daigotsu (471 comments) says:

    Pete, your call for a “comprehensive debate” is just a way of trying to turn a non issue into an issue and to give the views of a minority – you and your fellow Republicans – a validity they don’t deserve as one side of a “debate”. But hey, you want to hav ea debate, there is actually nothing stopping you. You’re free to voice your opinion. And you’ve been voicing it for decades. And nobody is persuaded. What more of a debate do you need?

    How do you know a majority of NZers don’t oppose declaring war on Australia? We’ve never had a comprehensive debate on the issue!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    Hi Pete,

    Many polls over twenty some years all showing the same result, a clear majority opposed to change, and multiple examples of this being debated, is not “comprehensive”????

    Seriously. Your a dishonest bullshit artist.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    Pete George starts off on this thread with a whopper of a lie, claiming the Queen does not come here. When it is shown that she has in fact been here twelve times, Pete changes tack and claims she has not been here RECENTLY, ignoring the issue of the Queens age.

    Then Pete George changes tactics again and claims that the issue has not been “comprehensively” debated, and that public opinion is mixed at best. When this lie is exposed, and it is demonstrated that not a single poll shows republicanism in the majority and that this HAS been debated for over twenty years, he redefines comprehensive to means something else entirely.

    I call Pete George out as a lying bullshit artist.

    Would you buy a used car this guy???

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    ShawnLH, you note the majority support the status quo, and infer that it is appropriate for a majority to decide these matters. Thus you support mandate to rule and to govern, all while in opposition to democracy because you do not like the people having a right to decide their governance.

    Contradiction much.

    You would like there to be an order of rule that you agree with, but because you fear that others would not agree you are wary of democracy.

    Accurate?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    “ShawnLH, you note the majority support the status quo, and infer that it is appropriate for a majority to decide these matters. Accurate?”

    Not at all. I am simply pointing out that contra some claims, there is no desire for change. That does not infer anything else other than that there is no desire for change.

    I am fine about individuals deciding their governance. Democracy in practice does not do that. Democracy presents only the illusion of choice, while in reality taking away genuine choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    ShawnLH, whereas the real illusion might be that the individual has choice, in many ways the formation of society (the social contract) provides the security for there to be any guarantor to that freedom of choice. You seem to believe that this society and related government can exist without any connection to democracy, as if freedom of choice once secured is threatened if the society/government that enables it is or becomes democratic.

    You are trying to claim that there is a collective that provides for individual choice and that if this collective is, or becomes, democratic there is the temptation of the majority to impose on the minority.

    A similar line to that of the corporate that seeks global freedom from accountability to local populations (through their democratic action at the national level). As if the once their is a regime that recognises its (individual or corporate) right to property and to operate for personal/corporate profit, this should be unconstrained from democratic intervention – or there be compensation for impact on property or profit.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. SJM (84 comments) says:

    When the public can remove their local MP for what they judge as poor performance or unacceptable behavior, and the public can remove the government for the same reasons, with the budget passed not by parliament but by the public whose money is, then it will be possible to consider matters of a republic or not.
    Do this and the public will become their own parliament, not beholden to being bribed with their own money every three years by the powerful and influential, as is the case now.
    With real democracy the question of republic or monarchy as we now understand it becomes irrelevant.

    To open up a discussion on a republic without details mentioning power, accountability and the democratic process is a sure fire way to have the nation become less democratic and less free.
    Republicans in NZ, and Australia for that matter, are played for fools by those who realise that this is a discussion about power, not abstract notions of crowns and presidents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. SJM (84 comments) says:

    Pete George (21,556 comments) says:
    March 9th, 2014 at 12:13 pm

    Sounds like a sensible approach. We should be given the choice if something like this is what the majority want or not. That’s democracy, in contrast to those who don’t want it discussed because they don’t want any change.
    *********************************

    No, that is not a choice, you are to be presented with a fait accompli by the self selected, the unelected who will work out the messy details at a later date without so much as a by your leave.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. ShawnLH (6,707 comments) says:

    SPC,

    “in many ways the formation of society (the social contract) provides the security for there to be any guarantor to that freedom of choice.”

    No, it does not. Apart from the fact that there is no social contract as you claim (where is the document that anyone signed up to?) the Leviathan state does not guarantee freedom at all, it restricts freedom as much as it can get away with.

    “You are trying to claim that there is a collective that provides for individual choice and that if this collective is, or becomes, democratic there is the temptation of the majority to impose on the minority.”

    No imposed “collective” provides for individual choice. Individual choice occurs when there is no imposed collective. Democracy does not merely tempt oppression, it is oppression by it’s very nature.

    “A similar line to that of the corporate that seeks global freedom from accountability to local populations”

    You mean the predatory State, not “local populations”. Contra tyrants of all stripes, the State represents only itself, not the human beings it oppresses.

    “this should be unconstrained from democratic intervention”

    You mean by democratic intervention, the State stealing from the productive. Democratic “intervention” is just a euphemism for State oppression.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Apart from the fact that there is no social contract as you claim (where is the document that anyone signed up to?)

    A contract can exist without a written document. The social contract, if it exists, is more like a quasi contract, where people know what the terms are even though there is no actual agreement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    Yes, we have what is known as a constitutional within parliament tradition, albeit while without a written constitution – as a parliament derived from the one in the UK.

    But of course the concept of society is premised as of those of the area that accept that those of this area are of a common sovereignty. The Crown often served as a tool for this. An unwritten constitution would be the development of practice as to how those of this group would be governed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    ShawnLH, how can there be defence of property right without government?

    Government is required to declare its sovereignty area, in which it recognises property rights.

    You seem to imagine a world where global corporates can have their property rights respected without any government to restraint them – is this the American TPP negotiating position or just what their corporates want it to be?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    The Home of Australian Republicanism and Democracy is

    Victoria

    New Zealander of the Century (was born there)

    Michael Joseph Savage would have been influenced or at the very lest aware and inspired by those

    Early Republicans many Australians do not realise “Republicans got them the Right to Vote”

    but then others are very aware

    of what Eureka was about

    “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”

    You should know that NZ spends a lot of time grovelling to your new masters

    Need a laugh a Quote from a “Greek Australian”?

    “DO they celebrate ANZAC day in NZ?”

    http://www.made.org/

    There is a Reason why the Queen is Head of State and Head of the Armed forces

    it is because over many centuries Hostiles have attempted to

    Destroy all civilised institutions and enslave people

    England or Great Britain actually operates like a Republic

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Daigotsu (471 comments) says:

    Looks like Pete George is cowering in fear, afraid to answer his critics.

    Typical Republican, calls for debate and then runs scared from it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. deadrightkev (610 comments) says:

    I don’t rate the royal family as anything other than B grade entertainment. I am cringing already with the two young royals and baby on their way.

    The governor general is an expensive distraction we can do without as he has no value whatsoever to the nation.

    John Key raising the flag issue in election year is another good example of fiddling while Rome burns. He needs to do something valuable for NZ with a referendum – should there be Maori Seats and should we abolish the Waitangi Tribunal could be added to the flag question. I am sure Kiwis can tick a couple more boxes while they are at it.

    New Zealand plods along being led by populist mediocrity, the royal family and a change of flag will not lead us back to prosperity or wipe out the growing separatism in NZ.

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