Jamie Whyte on race based law

July 30th, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

has done a speech on the place of race in the law. Some people will react kneejerk against it and say it is bashing, but I actually think he makes his points by avoiding inflammatory rhetoric, and focusing on principles and outcomes.  Some extracts:

David Cunliffe recently apologised to a Women’s Refuge symposium:

“I don’t often say it – I’m sorry for being a man … because family and sexual violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men.”

The Prime Minister accused Cunliffe of being insincere. Maybe he was.

Or maybe not. The apology conforms to Labour party thinking. Whereas we in believe in personal responsibility, the Labour party believes in collective responsibility.

Those who believe in collective responsibility see people not so much as individuals but as members of groups: men and women, gays and heterosexuals, the rich and the poor, Maori and Pakeha.

For example, the Labour Party has a rule that half the people on their list must be women. This is intended to ensure equal parliamentary representation for women.

Labour believes that a man cannot represent a woman in parliament, even if she votes for him. And that a woman automatically represents other women, even if they did not vote for her or disagree with her. All that matters is group membership.

Similarly, Cunliffe believes he is responsible for sexual violence, even though has never perpetrated any, simply because he is a man.

This “identity politics” comes easily to many people. It is a way of thinking with ancient roots in mankind’s tribal history.

Nevertheless, it is ugly. It is the mindset that lies behind such obscenities as collective punishment and clan feuding.

Identity politics is one reason I could never vote left. I am socially liberal on a fair few issues, but I firmly believe in treating people as individuals, not just as members of a gender, race or other identity.

Alas, the principle that the law should be impartial has never been fully embraced in New Zealand. Even today, after any number of equal rights movements, New Zealand law makes a citizen’s rights depend on her race.

The reparations made to iwi by the Waitangi Tribunal are NOT an example of this. The Treaty of Waitangi gave Maori property rights over the land they occupied. Many violations of these rights followed. The remedies provided by the Waitangi Tribunal are not a case of race-based favouritism. They are recognition of property rights and, therefore, something that we in ACT wholeheartedly support.

Good to have that stated. I strongly support them also.

Many people have opinions about what other people should do with their property. Under the Resource Management Act, how much weight your opinion carries depends on your race. If you are Maori, you have a say on these matters that others lack.

Some state run or state directed organisations openly practice race-based favouritism. I know a woman who has raised children by two fathers, one Pakeha and the other Maori. If her Pakeha son wants to attend law school at Auckland University, he will have to get much higher grades than her Maori son.

That’s a good example. They are raised by the same mother in the same household, with the same access to opportunities. But the blood line of their fathers gives one of them a privilege the other does not have.

The question is why race-based laws are tolerated, not just by the Maori and Internet-Mana Parties, but by National, Labour and the Greens.

I suspect the reason is confusion about privilege.

Maori are legally privileged in New Zealand today, just as the Aristocracy were legally privileged in pre-revolutionary France.

But, of course, in our ordinary use of the word, it is absurd to say that Maori are privileged. The average life expectancy of Maori is significantly lower than Pakeha and Asian. Average incomes are lower. Average educational achievement is lower.

Again it is good he stated this. Overall Maori are not privileged. They do worse in most areas we deem important. But just because they are under-privileged in many areas, does not mean it is incorrect to say they have some special legal privileges.

Legal privilege offends people less when the beneficiaries are not materially privileged, when they are generally poorer than those at a legal disadvantage.

Absolutely. The argument is you use legal privilege to try and compensate for the lack of privilege in other areas. But is that a good idea?

Apparently, many people do need to be reminded why the principle of legal equality is important.

It is important because, without it, society becomes a racket.

When people are equal before the law, they can get ahead only by offering other people goods or services that they value. We are all playing to the same rules, and we do well only if we “deliver the goods”. This promotes not only economic growth and prosperity but civility. It forces people to attend to the preferences of others.

Where people enjoy legal privilege, by contrast, they can get ahead without doing anything of value for other people. Because the system is rigged in their favour, they don’t need to “deliver the goods”.

Suppose, for example, that the government decided that Japanese women deserved a legal privilege. They should be allowed to erect barriers across the roads they live on. Anyone wanting to proceed down the road must negotiate with these women to get the barriers lifted.

This would provide Japanese women with an opportunity to make easy money by charging people a fee to lift their barriers. It would thereby divert them from productive occupations. It would drive up the cost of travelling around the city, as people either took longer routes or paid the fees. And it would create feelings of resentment towards Japanese women.

This may sound fanciful. But it is precisely the situation that the Resource Management Act (RMA) has created with regard to resource consents and iwi. If you want to proceed with developing land near iwi, you may well have to pay iwi for permission to proceed. That easy money diverts Maori from more productive activity, drives up the cost of developing land and creates resentment towards Maori.

This is sadly true. It incentivises some Iwi to make money from opposing developments, rather than encouraging them to be involved in their own. Of course not true in all cases, such as Ngai Tahu.

Nor does legal privilege do Maori any good over the long-run.

Allow me another analogy. Imagine that SANZAR, the body that administers the Super 15, decided that the Blues deserved a legal privilege. Whereas all the other teams will continue to earn 5 points for a try, the Blues will earn 10.

This would benefit Blues players over the short-term. They would win many more games than they now do. But giving the Blues this advantage in the rules would reduce their incentive to work hard on their skills and fitness. After a while, standards of play at the Blues would decline. Fewer Blues players would be selected for the All Blacks.

Return to those half-brothers I mentioned earlier: one Pakeha who will need an “A” to get into law school, one Maori who will need only a “C”. Which one is more likely to work hard at school? Which one is more likely to make the most of his potential?

Such scheme are very well intended, but I share the concern that they do more harm than good in the long run.

Tags: , ,

187 Responses to “Jamie Whyte on race based law”

  1. Pete George (23,420 comments) says:

    Whyte has followed up today with a media release… We need a civilised discussion about racial law

    Yesterday I published the speech that I gave to the ACT Party Waikato Conference on Saturday. It concerned a fundamental principle of Western civilisation.

    I said that all citizens should be equal before the law.

    I realise that in some countries, such as Afghanistan, that might be a controversial idea. Many people in Afghanistan reject the idea that women should have equal rights.

    And at earlier times in history the idea was rejected across the Western world. Up to the mid-20th century, laws that privileged men, whites and gentiles were common.

    But in New Zealand today, you might expect the principle of equality before the law to be uncontroversial. You might expect that a declaration of commitment to it would be greeted with quiet equanimity, perhaps even a yawn.

    Not so. My declaration has triggered vitriolic hostility.

    …and takes a shot at the media…

    Journalists have an important role to play in a democracy. They are supposed to provide the public with facts and informed analysis that help them to hold politicians to account. They are not supposed to shut down debate with accusations of racism and offensiveness. They are not supposed to be thought police.

    His target market may be lapping it up but there is a strong reaction from elsewhere, including from journalists.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. tvb (4,311 comments) says:

    There is nothing wrong with an honest C. Many have to work quite hard to get one. Many do not.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Grendel (987 comments) says:

    PG, so fucking what if there is a ‘strong reaction’ from elsewhere? if there is, and its against what he is saying, they clearly did not actually read what he said, and are simply interested in protecting the legal privelege.

    case in point is the article you linked to when you first decided to have a whine about this. read that and then read what Whyte actually said and tell me if he is reacting to the right article?

    the strawman in that article is the accusation of racism etc, not the completely accurate point made by whyte.

    Whyte is reacting today quite rightly to the fact that his very clear speech was rendered down to racism by a lazy media who want to keep directing the narrative. should he have expected any different? no, sadly.

    but do we deserve different from our media, absolutely.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 58 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    tvb

    In the absence of other factors (eg working full-time with family commitments) anyone slogging their guts out to get an “honest C” needs to think seriously about whether they are suited to whatever they are studying and whether a qualification dominated with “honest Cs” is actually worth having.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. UrbanNeocolonialist (262 comments) says:

    Well said Jamie.

    Manufacturing aristocracies and class systems (4 feet good 2 feet better) might fit the left’s world view and modus operandi, but is corrosive and economically negative.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 47 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Mike Wilkinson (71 comments) says:

    Identity politics is one reason I could never vote left.

    DPF, this may seem a bit pointed, but could I draw you out on just how right you are? How did or would you have voted in 1984 and 1987?

    Cheers,
    Mike

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Redbaiter (8,234 comments) says:

    “Whyte is reacting today quite rightly to the fact that his very clear speech was rendered down to racism by a lazy media who want to keep directing the narrative.”

    Perfectly correct. NZ’s almost 100% LW MSM is a liability to the democratic process with their inability to think outside the Progressive square.

    Take one of the main offenders, Radio Live’s “political editor” who is in my humble opinion just your standard run of the mill Scottish communist and was one of the first to jump on the racist bandwagon, and also said this-

    “oh my god, now Jamie Whyte is complaining that he was misrepresented yesterday. and moaning about the media giving him a hard time.”

    In complete denial of her inability to express any political opinion outside that approved as progressive conventional wisdom. She blocked me on Twitter because I expressed the view that Mandela was a terrorist who deserved no reverence.

    This is how the closed club that is the NZ MSM thinks, (Andrea Vance dismissed my criticism of her reporting as someone “trying to gate crash the party”) and until we get rid of them and their influence on our political system, we’ll never have a truly democratic circumstance. Jamie Whyte has an intellect and a perfectly legitimate viewpoint that deserves so much better than these blinkered jack booted thug Progs.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. RRM (9,762 comments) says:

    A speech that I entirely agree with.

    But it reminds me of that enormously successful Leader of the Opposition, Dr Don Brash.
    All very correct, quite eloquent, but so long and compendious that no-one is going to listen through to the end.

    I hope this is Whyte in “preaching to the choir” mode, and hope that he has a completely different gear he can get into for campaigning and TV interviews/debates.

    Act need to grow their base, not just consolidate what they have. I fervently believe they would find rich pickings among younger ex- Labour / Green voters like myself..

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. AG (1,823 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 41 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. kowtow (8,114 comments) says:

    Too late jamie,labour introduced it and notional have gone along with it.

    The only answer would be a binding referendum.

    Who’ll give the country a say?

    That’s why they wont let Craig near parliament ,if they can help it.

    They destroyed Brash for the same reason.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Grendel (987 comments) says:

    Who would have thought that AG, an academic who relies on this rubbish so as to keep being trotted out to look clever by the chattering classes, has nothing of value to add but misdirection and look at something vaguely similar that national did.

    dickhead.

    did you not notice the bit where Whyte pointed out that National also pander to race based privelege?

    Is Rural a race?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Viking2 (11,338 comments) says:

    Its not just between races that the Privilege occurs. Its also within race.

    A $20 million hole in the accounts of the central North Island iwi has raised questions about the way settlement money was used, including whether payments followed proper process and were adequately justifed. The Tuwharetoa Settlement Trust has launched an internal inquiry into investment and spending decisions made after a $66 million settlement five years ago.

    General manager Temuera Hall, in a letter to iwi members, raised possible court action against iwi leaders who were the original trustees and saw the settlement through to completion.

    The money was part of the biggest Treaty of Waitangi settlement in history and was dubbed the “Treelords deal” when signed by the outgoing Labour government in 2008.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11301105

    So, Greed and Privileged are alive and well in the CNI.

    I feel another “Treaty Settlement” coming on.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. kowtow (8,114 comments) says:

    AG

    A candidate at Otago who doesn’t have the grades for second year law can play the Maori card when a honkey can’t.That’s a fact.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. RRM (9,762 comments) says:

    dickhead.

    Is Rural a race?

    Um, no, but it IS a collective identity, which is I believe what Jamie Whyte’s speech was actually about… ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. mjw (378 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 37 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. David Garrett (6,912 comments) says:

    Geddis: You say you are “willing to bet money” that there is no quota system for entry to law schools based on race, and you deny that under that quota Maori need lower marks to get in…excellent, you have laid down a challenge, which I accept with alacrity.

    Name your wager, and I will spell out Canterbury’s “Maori Quota” scheme for you…Any sum you like…Since you are an underpaid academic and I am an underemployed lawyer, how about $200?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 58 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. RRM (9,762 comments) says:

    Viking2 – surely you are not saying tribal elites lined their own pockets?

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. jcuk (663 comments) says:

    It was good to read the transcript .. thanks DPF … without the bloody interviewer talking over him all the time as on National Radio’s Morning Report this morning.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. AG (1,823 comments) says:

    @kowtow,

    A candidate at Otago who doesn’t have the grades for second year law can play the Maori card when a honkey can’t.That’s a fact.

    Sure. Along with a wide range of other claims for “special consideration” at the margins of the acceptance grade. But it just isn’t true that “a non-Maori” needs “much higher” grades than “a Maori” to get in.

    @David G,

    You say you are “willing to bet money” that there is no quota system for entry to law schools based on race…

    No I didn’t. I said I’d bet money that there wasn’t a quota system for entry into Auckland law school. Unimportant places like Canterbury don’t count.

    I am concerned, however, that we’re missing the main point. The coddled children of New Zealand’s rural elites are being given enormous privileges when it gets into medical school, a ticket to a rich and privileged life! Why aren’t we all rioting in the streets? It’s just like 1780’s France!!!!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 31 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Griff (7,212 comments) says:

    :lol:
    amazing how you can Google facts
    can I have some of that bet
    http://www.laws.canterbury.ac.nz/courses
    The University of Canterbury School of Law offers five 200 level compulsory core courses. These are:

    LAWS 202 Criminal Law
    LAWS 203 The Law of Contract
    LAWS 204 The Law of Torts
    LAWS 205 Land Law
    LAWS 206 Public Law

    Entry into these courses is limited. There are additional quota places in each of the 200 level compulsory core courses. The additional quotas are as follows:

    10 places are reserved for people of Maori descent who would not otherwise qualify for a place.
    http://www.otago.ac.nz/courses/qualifications/llb.html
    Candidates considered for standard entry shall be selected on the basis of their academic record, with particular emphasis placed on the marks obtained in the 100-level Law paper (LAWS 101). However, the Committee may admit a candidate whose academic record would not otherwise qualify him or her for admission if it is satisfied that the candidate’s academic results do not reflect his or her true ability.
    Candidates for alternative entry

    shall be considered by virtue of their Māori descent;

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. David Garrett (6,912 comments) says:

    Geddis: Yes, I noticed that qualification about Auckland after I had drafted my reply…but let’s just quickly settle upon the amount of the wager before someone finds the Auckland rules (which IIRC pre-dated the Maori quota at Canterbury which was put in place when I was there) and posts them here..

    I wager $200 that Auckland Law School also allows a Maori quota into Stage 2 courses with a bare pass (i.e a C) and not whatever mark every other student needs to advance from Stage One.

    Offer on the table blowarse….

    PS How many of your faculty have written or contributed to a text commonly used by NZ Law Students?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Griff (7,212 comments) says:

    Auckland
    https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/law/about/our%20faculty/prospectuses/Law%20UG%20Prospectus%202015%20FINAL.pdf
    Entry into LLB Part II is limited and determined on a competitive basis.
    Entry into LLB Part II is calculated on the basis of your grades in LAW
    121G, LAW 131, (weighted doubly) plus your best 90 points from non-law
    courses. The Selection Committee meets in late December.
    The overall average grade required for selection into LLB Part II can vary
    from year to year, depending on the number of applicants. In recent
    years the minimum grade required has been between a B+ (GPA 6.00)
    and A- (GPA 7.00).

    Targeted admission schemes
    Targeted admission schemes exist for Māori students, for indigenous
    Pacific residents and for disabled students.
    If you are a Māori student, an indigenous Pacific resident or disabled,
    have completed LLB Part I and believe you can achieve at least a C+
    average, you will be encouraged to apply for LLB Part II.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. RRM (9,762 comments) says:

    BOOM :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. AG (1,823 comments) says:

    As long as you agree that by “Maori quota” , you mean a fixed number of “Maori” taken into Auckland’s part 2 LLB each year, and by “C” you mean “C”, then sure! I’ll take your money.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. AG (1,823 comments) says:

    Bugger.

    I’m guessing that as my response appeared after Griff posted, Garrett will welsh. If you feel like being honourable, give it to rape crisis.

    OK – got a lecture to give. This has been fun. But please – don’t forget the real injustice here, those coddled rural folk with their free ride into medicine!!!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. David Garrett (6,912 comments) says:

    Geddis…Righto! Since you were “willing to bet money” that AUCKLAND Law School didn’t have a Maori quota, and it is now clear they do, the only thing remaining is how much was the wager?

    I concede that you did not have time to accept my wager of $200, but a gentlemen would, I think, agree that a wager in that sum had been made…Since, as a former bookmaker I only bet on certainties, I could have been a prick and made it $5,000, which you probably couldn’t pay…Surely even an academic can make $200??

    Let me know how you would like to pay…a cheque is probably easier…

    You gutless bastard! suddenly got a lecture to give!!

    I am content to rely on what the majority think of who owes who what…

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Griff (7,212 comments) says:

    Waikato quota is not apparent from their site
    But
    considering they deliberately target students to enroll in Maori law its a by and by

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Ashley Schaeffer (455 comments) says:

    I said yesterday that I found Whyte and Seymour unconvincing. Very pleased to read this essay from Whyte on what I think is one of the biggest issues facing New Zealand today and in the future. Agree 100%. It’s just common sense really and anyone who can’t see it is automatically suspect in my view.

    AG, I think Whyte would agree with you about the privileged rural elite.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    “Yes because Maori are exactly like the nobility under the ancient regime. What a pillock.”

    Well, let the down ticks start, but I have to side with Mike on this. Maori issues aside, that comparison is just ludicrous.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. emmess (1,416 comments) says:

    If you are going to go down the line of one group is had a more disadvantaged upbringing than another group.
    Shouldn’t you look at when one group was brought up?
    I am sure a Maori child brought up in the 90’s would have been materially a lot better off than a Pakeha child brought up in say the 50’s.
    So by that reasoning shouldn’t elderly people be receiving ‘affirmative action’? (And don’t say but they get the pension because that is not the reason for it.)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Griff (7,212 comments) says:

    Sorry David
    One day I will buy you a drink or drop in with one on the way home from up north.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. SW (237 comments) says:

    Griff – i don’t think Waikato has competitive entry…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    “G, I think Whyte would agree with you about the privileged rural elite.”

    Oh what the hell, might as well drop a bomb.

    Of course he would, he’s a Liberal. Liberals hate hierarchy, privilege, nobility, and distinctions between people. He is totally enmeshed in modernism and does not have a conservative bone in his body. Hardly a great shock from a guy who thinks incest is acceptable.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. David Garrett (6,912 comments) says:

    Griff: Many thanks for that quick work..

    I will translate the “lawyerspeak” in the Auckland scheme for those who are not legally qualified..

    First, to take advantage of their modified entry provisions to stage 2, you need to be Maori, OR an indigenous Pacific resident (i.e. as I read it, an Islander who normally lives in the Islands) OR a disabled person.

    Secondly, if you meet any one of those requirements, you only need to COMPLETE i.e not necessarily pass, Stage one Law to be eligible. But let’s assume our quota student gets a C (the requirement in Canterbury) whereas the entry mark to stage 2 courses for everyone else is a B +

    Thirdly, you must “believe” you can get a C + in stage 2 courses (where the real law begins) Extraordinary! They don’t even set a minimum standard – say a D or a C – – but just your subjective belief that you can get C + at stage two.

    THEN, if all the above is satisfied you will be “encouraged” to enrol for Stage 2…they don’t even limit the number who may apply, as Canterbury does.

    So technically I guess Geddis is right (and this is what the weasel will claim), that it is not a “quota” per se, but a lesser standard of entry to stage 2 if you are Maori. “Complete” stage one – which I suppose means sit the final – say you “believe” that if only given the chance you can get C +’s at Stage 2…and BINGO! You’re in!

    I call that racial preference…I don’t know what anyone else thinks…

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Max S (20 comments) says:

    An outstanding speech. New Zealander will be the poorer if he is not elected to Parliament this year. National should dump Williamson who is a disgrace and an embarrassment and give Whyte a free run in Pakuranga.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Jack5 (5,005 comments) says:

    As long as he doesn’t apologise for being the Whyte man.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. CameronFoxton (28 comments) says:

    DG – “You gutless bastard! suddenly got a lecture to give!!”

    Why does not commenting on kiwi blog while teaching a class make him gutless?

    Unless its feigned anger and just you two lawyers flirting

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. AG (1,823 comments) says:

    Quick check back …

    (1) You set the terms of the bet, Garrett … there is no “quota” – which means a pre-determined number of students taken irrespective of quality. As a bookie, you should know to make sure of what you are betting on. And a “bare pass” is not enough. A bare pass at Auckland is a C- … 10% lower than a C+. So, whatever. There was zero chance of you paying anyway.

    (2) You’ve COMPLETELY misrepresented the “modified entry procedures”. COMPLETELY.

    For instance, “completed” in University speak means “passed”. And the term “believe” is there because you must complete the paperwork before you get your grades. And a C+ pass at Laws 1 level is the minimum requirement for ALL acceptances to Laws 2 at Auckland, not just Maori. In practice it will be far, far higher for both Maori and non-Maori applicants. So it isn’t the case that if you get a C+ pass as a Maori you are guaranteed to get in, but you need a B+/A- otherwise. It just isn’t true.

    Put it this way, if Garrett is your lawyer explaining a contract to you, DO NOT SIGN THAT CONTRACT!!!!!

    OK. REALLY have to go now.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 27 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. David Garrett (6,912 comments) says:

    Cameron: Two reasons: 1) clearly he is wrong about different standards of entry based on race, and he knows it; and 2) I am prepared to bet – not much though, since I only bet on certainties – that there are no lectures beginning at half past the hour…and Otago is a very small campus, and he certainly didn’t need half an hour to get across it to make a 3 pm!!

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. wf (414 comments) says:

    At last! someone who can state his (and as it turns out, my) opinions in plain English without resorting to unreasoned rhetoric and bias.
    I think I may have just allotted my party vote.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Grendel (987 comments) says:

    Shawn dont be a dick, Whyte never said he thought incest was acceptable, he said it was none of his or the states business what two consenting adults get up to, regardless of the ick factor.

    dont fall for the same shit that the media and lefties pedal which is assuming that not wanting to legislate against something means you are for it. its lazy and pathetic.

    the comparison of aristocracy is about having legal privilege, not the level of privelege or even the status, but the existence. however considering the way certain members of the maoritocracy seem to always have money falling in their pocket from the state and other boondoggles (Tuku morgan et al), it might not actually be inaccurate to do a wealth comparison between the two.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Bob R (1,358 comments) says:

    How refreshing to have someone articulate these issues so clearly. Whatever one thinks about ACT, getting someone of Whyte’s calibre will elevate the level of political discourse.

    ***Journalists have an important role to play in a democracy. They are supposed to provide the public with facts and informed analysis that help them to hold politicians to account. They are not supposed to shut down debate with accusations of racism and offensiveness. They are not supposed to be thought police. ***

    Well said.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Bob R (1,358 comments) says:

    ***
    “know a woman who has raised children by two fathers, one Pakeha and the other Maori. If her Pakeha son wants to attend law school at Auckland University, he will have to get much higher grades than her Maori son.”

    I’m willing to bet money that this just isn’t true. ***

    @ AG,

    I am a graduate of Auckland Law School. It was true when I attended. It appears from the information from “Griff” above that it still is.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Griff (7,212 comments) says:

    It might not be a quota in the wording but I would bet there is a unofficial quota of places to fill for Maori in Auckland.
    I believe I have seen information in the past that they still have a problem with not enough Maori candidates of acceptable quality applying and would love to see a breakdown of pass rates and grade scores for Maori under the preferential schemes and the applicants though normal channels.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. dime (9,788 comments) says:

    “That easy money diverts Maori from more productive activity, drives up the cost of developing land and creates resentment towards Maori.”

    This example sums up whats wrong with a lot of the western world.

    Too many jobs that actually produce nothing.

    An example being the finance sector in the US. A huge percentage of yanks work in it and they really do create nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. KiwiGreg (3,246 comments) says:

    Tried to run a business without finance dime?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. RRM (9,762 comments) says:

    AG vs DG

    You can tell you’re in the presence of lawyers when both declare themselves the winner of the argument, expect to get paid $200 for a quarter of an hour’s “work”, and muggins in the street is none the wiser about what’s going on than he was before the whole thing began…

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    Jesus this sort of thing has been going on for years- Law School/Med School quotas were common knowledge when I was at University way back twenty years ago!
    And you should have seen the state of some of the dropkicks that got into Teacher’s College…

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Ed Snack (1,829 comments) says:

    How do you have a quota when you don’t have a quota ? Simples, you state that there is NO QUOTA, and then fill a purely coincidentally equal number (more or less) each year from your target group with lower standards set for acceptance. Easy, no quota and the criteria are suitably “fuzzy” to be obfuscated away.

    But, in reality, if it looks like a quota, sounds like a quota, and acts like a quota, why, in academic speak (and strict interpretation of the letter of the law) lawyer speak, it’s something else all together. Otherwise known as …Oh look, a squirrel….

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Bob R (1,358 comments) says:

    @ Griff,

    From Whyte’s comment above he’s simply saying that a non-Maori/Pacific candidate is judged by a tougher criteria than a candidate who has that ancestry. Which is true.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. dime (9,788 comments) says:

    KiwiGreg – the number is way out of whack.

    “The financial services and insurance sectors employed 5.87 million people in 2012″

    “Tried to run a business without finance dime?” – finance from a bank? yep. never used it for this business (not that i’m taking credit for my legend boss heh)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. MH (696 comments) says:

    Chinese channels, world news slightly anti American rhetoric, then at least 2 programmes a week on the real estate market, how to use the Auckland Council web site on new zoning rules and development controls for subdivisions by 2 Chinese agents.

    Meanwhile on Maori TV its pommy super league, Polynesian local rugby league including plenty of replays of a Polynesian league team called the Warriors and plenty of cup of Haka competitions and then Te Reo.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Steve Wrathall (281 comments) says:

    It is amazing that some are trying to claim that there is not legal discrimination in favour of Maoris. A minute’s searching under “maori scholorship” turned up one in the Min of Heath, that only someone with whakapapa or cultural links to Maori can access.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. AG (1,823 comments) says:

    @RRM,

    True.

    Against that, I DID tell Garrett to give my money to Rape Crisis, which is not usual lawyerly behaviour!

    PS: Lecture written by 2, delivered then, back now, off to doctors. Just in case Garrett’s keeping tabs on my EVERY move!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Ryan Sproull (7,093 comments) says:

    Those who believe in collective responsibility see people not so much as individuals but as members of groups: men and women, gays and heterosexuals, the rich and the poor, Maori and Pakeha…

    …collectivists and individualists…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Viking2 (11,338 comments) says:

    One time badminton player becomes Race relations expert but clearly either cannot read or has serious comprehension and racial issues.

    Susan Devoy slams Act’s Maori privilege comments
    2:16 PM Wednesday Jul 30, 2014

    Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy has let rip at Act Leader Jamie Whyte, labelling his comments that Maori enjoy legal privilege “grotesque and inflammatory” and “incredibly naïve”. :lol: :lol: Yeah right.

    “Accusations of Maori privilege are not borne out by Maori socio-economic statistics.

    ( Of course they are not the same thing. Privilege is privilege and socio economic status has nothing to do with privilege. )

    Dimm witted tart.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. NK (1,200 comments) says:

    AG has a poor recollection of political history. The person who railed against the “coddled children of New Zealand’s rural elites being given enormous privileges” and who went on to remove those privileges was Roger Douglas who went on to start Act (in case you didn’t know).

    The jaundiced views on this article are astonishing and depressing.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Griff (7,212 comments) says:

    I know a woman who has raised children by two fathers, one Pakeha and the other Maori. If her Pakeha son wants to attend law school at Auckland University, he will have to get much higher grades than her Maori son.
    AG
    I’m willing to bet money that this just isn’t true. It certainly isn’t at Otago, no matter what urban legend holds. It just isn’t.

    From otago U
    Candidates for alternative entry shall be considered by virtue of their Māori descent;

    This means they can get in without the required grades based on race which you knew all along.

    Fuck you talk weasel shit even for a lawyer.
    You Auckland “c” grade disclaimer was again because you knew the facts of preferred entry.

    We remember these things on KB and you have placed a big label against your name.
    known bullshitter with no morals.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. dime (9,788 comments) says:

    Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy….. should resign because her job is just made up crap

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. David Garrett (6,912 comments) says:

    RRM: Not quite old boy…Here’s the sequence of events:

    1. Geddis says he will “bet money” that there is no race based preference at Auckland Law School.

    2. Because I know there is – and at Canterbury if not Otago – I eagerly take him up on his offer and suggest a wager of $200

    3. Griff very kindly brings up the rules for quotas based on lower marks required and a quota (at Canterbury) and what appears to be some sort of open ended scheme to allow Maori who have “completed” stage 1 – no reference to marks – to enter stage 2 if they “believe they can maintain a C + average.

    4. Geddis then quickly tries to renege…no big surprise there.

    5. I don’t “claim I have won”, but leave it up to you chaps to decide who won the wager and who is correct…

    got all that??

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. dime (9,788 comments) says:

    Some dude was on ZB last night. He uses the term “zionists”.. so usually that means lefty idiot.

    He was saying the maori seats are great, they gain no advantage from them blah blah.

    Amazing how people who see wacism everywhere will blindly lie to your face that race based seats are somehow ok for brown people.

    Anyway, Maori do gain advantage – we end up with extra MP’s from the overhang. so fuck em.

    Just another reason ill be voting ACT! this year.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. hj (6,794 comments) says:

    If you want to proceed with developing land near iwi, you may well have to pay iwi for permission to proceed. That easy money diverts Maori from more productive activity,
    ………..
    that assumes Maori have a much of an alternative. It is (always) the optimistic premise of the libertarian.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Unity (477 comments) says:

    Well, well, well. We now have 3 Parties wanting to get rid of race-based initiatives and policy!! At last the Sheeple are waking up and with 3 Parties expounding this, surely even more will take note especially those who have ‘thought it’ but haven’t wanted ‘to express it out loud’. Good on Jamie Whyte. It will now be a toss up between him and Colin Craig for my Party vote. I won’t give it to Winston though because he’s had long enough to make a difference and hasn’t. He is very shrewd and knows what the people want so is just saying it until the election and then he will clam up again afterwards.

    Jamie Whyte was also so very right about our pathetic media. They just don’t do their job of investigating and informing. They keep on trying to push their own point of view, very wrong that it is. This could be an interesting election. Key should take note as he’s been a very appeasing PM and has contributed to an awful lot of damage in this country with his racist policies and separatism.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. NK (1,200 comments) says:

    that assumes Maori have a much of an alternative. It is (always) the optimistic premise of the libertarian.

    Or the pessimistic negativism of the socialist who thinks they have no alternative.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. David Garrett (6,912 comments) says:

    Griff @ 3.09…Now I will bet YOU money that no power on earth – certainly not the Ombudsman – will drag that information out of the law schools!

    This is a subject dear to my heart because in 1991, as editor of the Canterbury Law Students Magazine “Obiter”, I led the charge against the introduction of Maori quotas at Canterbury…incidentally they were introduced by stealth over the summer break by the late duplicitous Prof. Gerry Orchard who pretty much everyone but me thought was a great guy..

    Anyway, in 1992 “Frontline” or one of those hour long docos we used to have when we had proper current affairs made a programme about Maori quotas in law schools…I, along with some Maori student at Vic (which also has quotas) and others were interviewed for the programme…I remember the Maori student because he waxed long and eloquent about how, having been given this wonderful chance, he was determined to make the most of it, to graduate and help his peole, and that he had “wrap around support” (Yep, the language was deteriorating even back then) from his whanu and iwi…he dropped out the next year…

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. kowtow (8,114 comments) says:

    Just listening to Jim Mora and the goons he has as guests today.

    So of course we have the MSM and cultural marxist commentariat reacting to jamie’s sensible speech.

    Jim Hickey says jamie is out of touch,having been out of the country for so long…..oh yeah? How about a referendum on the racist seats to see how out of touch the damn commentariat is?

    Susan Devoy too.We need to get rid of the Race office. She has no business criticising someone for his political views, it won’t be long before we end up like Europe or Australia ,criminalising free speech.

    Will Devoy challenge the Maori pollies for their offensive and racist use of the term “redneck”?

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. EAD (921 comments) says:

    All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

    If you look at the contrast in reaction to this announcement between people around the office watercooler and the shrieking and wailing by our political elite and its lap-dog media, it seems like the latter are stuck firmly at stage 2 and well behind the lumpen proletariat on this matter who have long seen the facade for what it is.

    Like on the Wizard of Oz, the media hysterics are telling us “Do not look behind the curtain” because if we do, the people might look and see that the Emperor (the Maori Gravy Train) has no clothes and no rational reason for existence.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. SW (237 comments) says:

    Griff – ‘this means they can get in without the required grades because if race’

    No, not really. Ethnicity can be argued as a factor as to why someone can get into second yer law at Otago without being in the top 200 places. But so can many other things, such as illness, really good grades outside of the final exam, being very close to the cut if two years in a row, genuine hardship etc etc.

    In practice, you won’t get into Second year by getting a C+ and being Maori, but you might get in if you get 74% and your Maori and you are involved with your community outside of class.

    I have sat on the committee at Otago and can say with certainty there is no quota. I very much doubt there is one in Auckland. As to Canterbury, is it REALLY competitive anyway?

    It also seems to me that AG won the argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. David Garrett (6,912 comments) says:

    Viking2: I have been a supporter of Dame Susan in the past, but that tirade is just utter bollocks..

    What Whyte has said is absolutely correct, and I fail to see how it is “racist” to advocate the removal of parliamentary seats reserved for those of a particular race..

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. RRM (9,762 comments) says:

    DG – I can see your lips moving, but all I hear is “wah wah waaaah…” :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. SW (237 comments) says:

    And taking a big step backwards, is the claim that any of this ‘legal privilege’ accurate?

    Law schools are surely allowed some discretion as to who they let into restricted papers and who they don’t. Why should the government prescribe things that independent committees must not take into account when making such decisions?

    If everyone here thinks the decision should be made solely on one final exam, what about the kid who is top of the class but who’s father dies the day before the final exam?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Inky_the_Red (746 comments) says:

    Why not let everyone into Law who achieves a pass? Why protect lawyers from competition?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. EAD (921 comments) says:

    @ DG:

    The word “racist” has been so overused as to become meaningless. It should be worn as a badge of honour in that what you have said is so close to the truth that no proper argument can be used to counter it.

    “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?… Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?… The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking – not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.” – George Orwell, 1984

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. David Garrett (6,912 comments) says:

    SW: Well God help your clients (if you have any) if you think your mate Geddis won that particular exchange..

    As to whether Canterbury is competitive, I don’t know about now, but when I was there 600 first year students got cut down to 250 by using whatever grade they needed to use…in my second year that grade was a B +…Modesty prevents me saying what I got.

    The Maori quota introduced in 1991 only required 10 Maori quota students to get a C pass…thus giving them a considerable advantage over their non Maori brethren…In fact a young mate of mine who had his heart set on following his father to the bar was hugely pissed off because he “only” got a B and didn’t get in, while the Maori quota students only needed a C…

    RRM: You really surprise me..I don’t care about the money – the prick was never going to pay anyway – but my opinion is less of you if you can’t see he was talking total shit…and as someone has pointed out, he knew it…

    SW: would you be happy if a heart surgeon who got in on a quota with a grade considerably lower than his peers operated on you? Believe it or not, some people place pretty much the same level of trust in their lawyer…

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. wat dabney (3,751 comments) says:

    Overall Maori are not privileged. They do worse in most areas we deem important. But just because they are under-privileged in many areas, does not mean it is incorrect to say they have some special legal privileges.

    You are confusing and conflating two totally different meanings of the word “privileged.” Whyte was using the term precisely and correctly, to mean someone who has special legal privileges.

    Bishops, for example, have seats reserved for them in the House of Lords. They are privileged. Equally, it is a demonstrable fact that Maori are legally privileged.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    But I think he deliberately used the word ‘privilege’ precisely because it carries those connotations.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. SW (237 comments) says:

    DG – oh you are a Canturbury graduate, I guess that explains…(jokes jokes!)

    “The Maori quota introduced in 1991 only required 10 Maori quota students to get a C pass…thus giving them a considerable advantage over their non Maori brethren…In fact a young mate of mine who had his heart set on following his father to the bar was hugely pissed off because he “only” got a B and didn’t get in, while the Maori quota students only needed a C”

    Do you know that for certain? I ask because I’ve heard similar complaints about Otago. They just happen to be wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Griff (7,212 comments) says:

    SW (221 comments) says:
    July 30th, 2014 at 4:57 pm

    You will get in with lower grades if you are Maori than if you are not all other factors being equal .
    True or false?
    Answered by

    Candidates for alternative entry shall be considered by virtue of their Māori descent;

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. David Garrett (6,912 comments) says:

    SW: Of course I know that for certain… I can vividly remember my mate coming to me very upset after he went to the Dean and was told again he could not have a place in stage 2…As I said, I led the charge against quotas, and was interviewed at length for a doco on it the following year..

    As luck would have it all turned out well for my young mate…he now earns a fortune in Singapore in Personnel Managament…sorry “Human Resources”…

    Oh and back to the jokes about the best law school in the country…The standard texts on Contract, Torts, Public Law and Media law are all written by or have contributions by Cant’y Profs…I think an old Land Law text was written by some guy in Auckland…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. SW (237 comments) says:

    Griff – key word being ‘considered’ – there are other also other grounds for alternative entry as you know doubt are aware.

    DG – no disrespect but I’m happy to stick with Professor Geddis (employee of Otago law faculty) over disgraced former politician with a Canterbury law degree.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. SW (237 comments) says:

    I have no doubt your mate couldn’t get in, but do you know for certain that a Maori student was let in with a C as oppose to a B in the same year group?

    That’s good, a position more suited to a B student at Canterbury and further proof that intellectual ability has little to do with how much you can earn in the corporate world. (again just having a laugh, I’m not actually so elitist)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Rightandleft (658 comments) says:

    This whole debate just sums up for me all the reasons I just cannot stand the far left. Without reading the entire speech people are shutting down the debate by accusing Whyte of racism when all he has done is argue for equality for all races. Susan Devoy has shown herself to be an absolute idiot. She condemned Whyte for a quote obviously taken out of context and inserted herself into a political debate. I really don’t see why we even have a race relations commissioner anyway. Where has she been all the times Winston opens his mouth about Asians?

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. dime (9,788 comments) says:

    DG – it’s gotta suck for a Maori kid at high school when he finds out everyone thinks he is to dumb to get into law school by himself and needs a helping hand. Must knock the confidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. MC2000 (18 comments) says:

    I agree that there are disadvantages and anomalies created when Maori get preferential entry to medical school. But there are potential advantages too, which I think Whyte should have acknowleged. Some maori doctors will be in a better position to treat many maori patients, mainly due to better communication and understanding of cultural background etc. If you want to improve the health of a sector of the population which has the poorest health, then a policy which increases the numbers of Maori doctors (by letting them in with slightly lower marks) may be helpful. You might find that a few Maori doctors – even if they did get slightly lower marks – are more of an asset in improving the woeful health of the Maori subset of the population, than the pakeha doctors that would have got in otherwise.

    Of course this seems terribly unfair if you are one of the pakeha students who lost their place to a maori student with lower marks.

    But what is medical school for? Is it a prize awarded after a tournament like the super 15? Or is it an institution to train doctors who will be able to improve the overall health of the NZ population?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Rightandleft (658 comments) says:

    Dime,

    I have had Maori and Pasifika students embarrassed when they’re pulled out of class to receive extra help and guidance to pass Level 2 or to encourage them to attend university while the pakeha and Asian kids stay behind. Some of my top students are Maori yet they get pulled out for the extra attention while several struggling pakeha kids are left behind. It just shows how foolish it is to base such extra attention and give lower standards based on race alone. If anything the help should be based on low socioeconomic status or poor academic results in the past.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. dime (9,788 comments) says:

    “Some maori doctors will be in a better position to treat many maori patients, mainly due to better communication and understanding of cultural background etc”

    Lmao like half the Maoris out there know anything about their culture.

    Been to a hospital lately? Perfect example of super citizens. Special Maori shit everywhere. Tons of jobs for Maori too. Doing cultural garbage.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Griff (7,212 comments) says:

    FFS weasel

    You try repeatedly to squeeze around the fact by saying there are other exceptions
    I can read. I know that from my linking earlier
    The simple fact remains
    Maori is a valid exception entitling race based special consideration for entry by your own documentation.
    I have a disability I also could get in under special consideration ! This doesn’t change the consideration given for race does it

    On the quota
    Its not ten Maori its ten Maori who dont make the cut for grades get in guaranteed every year…
    ditto at Auckland Maori who dont make the required grade can get in under their special status….

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. David Garrett (6,912 comments) says:

    SW: suit yourself…but your position – and resorting to my being a “disgraced politician” – says more about you than me…

    As does your seeming inability to make a conclusion from overwhelming evidence…almost none of it from me..

    But for the rest who can follow logic: how it works – or at least worked – at Canterbury was this…There were 250 places in each stage 2 course…10 in each course were reserved for Maori, who only needed a C in stage one to get in…the other 240 – in my year – needed a B +…that means that 10 B+ White kids who would otherwise have got into to fill those ten places didn’t…and that’s racial preference, however Geddis and his toadies like to slice it…

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. MC2000 (18 comments) says:

    Dime

    I expected that people would laugh at the idea that some maori doctors could possibly be in a better position to treat some maori patients.

    But – just suppose this was true – would you still oppose the idea of preferential entry to med school? I am interested in whether your disagreement is purely factual/pragmatic, or whether it is also ideological.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Bob R (1,358 comments) says:

    @ SW,

    If you read the post by Griff at 2:17pm* you can see the actual criteria for Auckland (there are other posts above about the criteria for other Law Schools). Whyte’s comment that non-Maori/Pacific students have a tougher entry criteria is correct, no?

    I graduated from Auckland Law School a decade ago – IIRC it was the case then that you could get into second year with a lower grade point average if you had Maori/Pacific ancestry, had a disability or were a senior student.

    Reposting from above:

    “Auckland

    Entry into LLB Part II is limited and determined on a competitive basis.
    Entry into LLB Part II is calculated on the basis of your grades in LAW
    121G, LAW 131, (weighted doubly) plus your best 90 points from non-law courses. The Selection Committee meets in late December.

    The overall average grade required for selection into LLB Part II can vary from year to year, depending on the number of applicants. In recent years the minimum grade required has been between a B+ (GPA 6.00) and A- (GPA 7.00).

    Targeted admission schemes

    Targeted admission schemes exist for Māori students, for indigenous Pacific residents and for disabled students. If you are a Māori student, an indigenous Pacific resident or disabled, have completed LLB Part I and believe you can achieve at least a C+ average, you will be encouraged to apply for LLB Part II.”

    https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/law/about/our%20faculty/prospectuses/Law%20UG%20Prospectus%202015%20FINAL.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. David Garrett (6,912 comments) says:

    Dime: One of the things I always remember about that doco I refer to was an interview with a Maori lawyer called Pauline Kingi…she and I were the only ones – from memory – who spoke against quotas…

    Pauline had a degree from Harvard law…when asked about quotas she lifted her chin up and said “why would I want to climb up a ladder into a back window when I can walk in the front door with everyone else?” I have never forgotten that…

    There was also lots of evidence at the time from the US that – as you suggest – black students at medical or law schools which had quotas felt they had “Quota Student” stamped on their foreheads…and why wouldn’t they think that? Where there are quotas it is entirely contrary to human nature not to wonder if members of a particular racial group got in on their own merits or because the bar was lowered just for them…

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. itstricky (1,761 comments) says:

    I don’t quite get where Maori have special legal privilege. Where does the law say “if you’re Maori you get 10 years off your time”

    Devoy has articulated it well. If you want to demand “equality” you should probably get ready for your fair share of crime, basic sickness, unemployment, and stigmatism. I mean, declaring everyone “equal” does not make them such, no matter how hard personal responsibility guy tries to make it sound that way. And, as she says, most people realise that – maybe not in critical thinking but intuitively.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    @dime – “Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy….. should resign because her job is just made up crap.”

    Agreed. Her position is nothing more than a left-wing finger-wagging pulpit against those deemed to have “transgressed” in some way.
    The same goes for the Human Rights Commission.
    The day that the RRC and HRC are scrapped will be a great day indeed. ( Fat chance I’d say….. ).

    As for the Waitangi Tribunal, that should have been scrapped years ago. All of the nonsense about “treaty principles” and “partnership” – neither of which is mentioned in the treaty (IIRC). These were both conjured up in the ’80s and ’90s.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Griff (7,212 comments) says:

    Fucken hell
    haven’t seen this much racist bullshit since Maori boy from Auckland U admitted that Maori get veto over any research with Maori even slightly involved at Auckland. He stated in one post that everyone must toe the Maori committee line when it came to te tricky “or else” then later claimed that every one does voluntary.
    yeh right.
    By his own admission you have no choice at auckland.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. itstricky (1,761 comments) says:

    Equally, it is a demonstrable fact that Maori are legally privileged.

    Do tell wat.

    While you’re there can you tell me what Simon Moutter does for society that’s worth 100 teachers?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. MC2000 (18 comments) says:

    I agree with many of the drawbacks that people such as Dime and DG have identified with preferential entry to med school (e.g. people presuming minority doctors aren’t as good, and there is a hilarious curb your enthusiam episode on this point). But do Dime, DG or any of the other detractors agree that it might also have some advantages? If it were true that preferential entry it produced more maori doctors and this improved maori health, would you think this was a point in its favour?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. David Garrett (6,912 comments) says:

    its an idiot: since I have nothing better to do while my dinner cooks..

    “the law” in New Zealand is made up of statute law (that passed by parliament) and common law (the law made by Judges)..Every time a Judge: 1) Agrees to hear from some supposed kaumatua about what Maori tikanga supposedly is in any given situation i.e nothing to do with the facts; 2) Agrees to hold court on a Marae or somewhere other than in a courtroom; 3) Takes into account some sort of restitution only Maori can do – such as the Maori Kings son and his “koha” to victims….that Judge is applying a different law from that he applies to non Maori defendants…can you follow that?

    If not, try and tell me which bits you have trouble understanding and I will try and break it down for you…

    And what the fuck has Simon Moutter’s – or anyone else’s – salary got to do with this discussion?

    MC: funnily enough, when it comes to doctors – at least if they remain GP’s – I would agree they may well have a better handle on things Maori…and there is definitely a large cultural aspect to health care…the law is rather different …or at least it damn well should be…Justice is supposed to be blind, and treat all people the same, regardless of race colour creed or position in society…

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Rex Widerstrom (5,342 comments) says:

    Inky_the_Red asks:

    Why not let everyone into Law who achieves a pass? Why protect lawyers from competition?

    Goodness, there’ll be a few stiff gins and lie downs needed at the Law Society if they read that. You’ll be met with all sorts of ballyhoo about the risk to the paying public if their lawyer is incompetent, which of course overlooks the fact that some practicing lawyers are incompetent and their clients undoubtedly suffer as a result. It’s just that they’re usually at the bottom of the pecking order taking on all the messy stuff that the lawyers who fancy themselves superior don’t wish to get involved with… therefore they’re like the birds that peck the nits off the backs of jungle creatures and their nuisance to the profession is offset by their usefulness (just pity the poor clients).

    Of course patch protection is rife across most professions, whose professional organisations could teach unions a thing or two in that area. But of all the professions, lawyering is surely amongst those ripe for a loosening of the rules.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. itstricky (1,761 comments) says:

    1. Is there anything to stop you from voicing your tikanga in a hearing? Doesn’t mean anyone has to take any notice of it.
    2. Diddums. Are you jealous? Why do you care?
    3. The Judge can order restitution to a victim. How is that different? Restitution only Maori can do? Really? I’d like to see that one in writing.
    4. Can you quote me a law that treats Maori different? Just one?
    6. Simon Moutter? Ask wat. I’m still waiting wat.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    Grendel,

    “Shawn dont be a dick,”

    I make no apologies for being a man. ;)

    ” Whyte never said he thought incest was acceptable, he said it was none of his or the states business what two consenting adults get up to, regardless of the ick factor.”

    Yes, that is Liberalism. ‘So long as two consenting blah blah blah………’

    “the comparison of aristocracy is about having legal privilege, not the level of privelege or even the status, but the existence.”

    He massively overstated the case for effect. It’s called politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    itstricky- you are getting spanked mate…

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. MC2000 (18 comments) says:

    DG, good to see you are balanced enough to accept that preferential entry to med school may have some pragmatic advantages. Whyte is a smart guy, and he must realise that support for such policies is not always about identity politics.

    I don’t like identity politics but I MIGHT still support preferential med school entry for Maori if there were sufficient pragmatic advantages (i.e improved health for maori) which outweighed the potential disadvantages (e.g. some Maori med students may use it as a crutch not strive to reach their full potential).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. David Garrett (6,912 comments) says:

    Rex: Hope you’re keeping your head protected from that Aussie sun..

    I must disagree about patch protection…John Boscawen – bless his cotton socks – had a bit of a crusade going about opthamologists…apparently it costs about NZD1500 per eye to do a cataract operation in this country…the same operation using the same plastic lens that the Fred Hollows foundation does for $50 an eye…this is because the opthamologists close ranks to exclude foreign trained doctors…

    I would also rate dentists as far above lawyers in the “patch protection” stakes…How come I can get a root canal done up in Tonga for NZD60 when it costs closer to NZD1000 here? And if I want implants for the teeth that have failed (bad genes as well as not being diligent enough looking after them) they will cost about $5000 per tooth here as oppose to about $500 in Cambodia or Thailand?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. David Garrett (6,912 comments) says:

    “diddums”…good argument…

    Actually NO…if I wanted my “kaumatua” to speak for me on a matter entirely unrelated to the evidence the Judge would refuse, and threaten both me and the kaumatua with contempt if I pushed it…If I wanted the hearing at the local rugby club in the presence of the portraits of my long dead heroes, ditto… (As regulars will know I don’t give a damn about the national obsession, but the point is just as valid)

    “Can you quote me a law that treats Maori differently…” Crikey…Did you not read the distinction between STATUTE law – that’s the one that has “Act” on the end of the title, and is composed of sections – and COMMON LAW which is what the Judges say it is in some particular area? I really don’t think I can make it any simpler than that..

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    MC2000 @ 6:23 pm

    Thanks for that post. Good to see some balanced commentary on the issue instead of the usual “it’s Apartheid, it’s racism” crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. adze (2,057 comments) says:

    @itstricky

    Devoy has articulated it well. If you want to demand “equality” you should probably get ready for your fair share of crime, basic sickness, unemployment, and stigmatism.

    Already sorted. Here are some stats about a group I’m in:

    Crime: My group represents nearly 94% of the prison population (year ending 30 June 2012 – Stats NZ)

    Health: My group suffers 503.7 deaths per 100,000 from all major unnatural causes, compared to 356.9 per 100,000 (2010, Ministry of Health) from the next highest group

    Unemployment: About 5.6%, though not the highest group.

    You’ve probably guessed that my group is male. How’s that for a sufficiently fair share of negative stats? As a man do I need special legal privileges? :P

    I have stigmatism too, but fortunately I had laser surgery in my mid 20s to correct that. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Rex Widerstrom (5,342 comments) says:

    @David Garrett

    I’m feeling a bit crook, since you ask… sun, stress, and overwork I think.

    I’d agree there are other professions guilty of patch protection, and dentists are probably the worst. I remember being on a course with a guy who incessantly complained about how much alimony he was paying, how much everything cost, and then one day I saw him leave in a Mercedes 2-seater convertible. Turned out he was a dentist. They can never seem to have enough money, and are never willing to negotiate on price.

    But, based on the “how hard is it, really?” scale, lawyers are a better case of a loosening of restrictions I think. As you’d well know, at Magistrates Court level it’s 49% common sense and 49% the ability to ‘read’ people (especially judges) and make a persuasive argument; about 2% requires any deep knowledge of the law. That could be handled by having a single lawyer on hand to advise a team of much cheaper paralegals on any fine points.

    That’s pretty much how the Aboriginal Legal Service operates. A lot of their advocates have only done a certificate (Polytech level) qualification, and they’re given dispensation in statute to argue before a judge. Not that many do much arguing… most counsel their clients to plead guilty and then tell that to the judge.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Unity (477 comments) says:

    Well, having read all of that, I will resist being treated by someone of Maori descent. How ridiculous lowering the bar for one racial group. It’s not only in the medical world though.

    I know someone who trained to be a Chef. Being non-Maori she had to pay for herself including knives and all her gear. She worked alongside someone of Maori descent and this person had everything paid for her by the State. Part way through the course the person of Maori descent decided she didn’t want to be a Chef after all and turned to nursing. Again everything was paid for her but not for the non-Maori people. She didn’t finish that either and returned to her Chef training – again fully funded. Totally ridiculous and grossly unfair. The non-Maori Chef trainee had to scrimp by to fund her training but it was handed on a plate the part-Maori. This causes resentment and quite rightly so.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    ‘I will resist being treated by someone of Maori descent’
    Good job. Would probably have dodgy personal hygiene, eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. tas (607 comments) says:

    Those are very sensible, insightful, and well-reasoned comments from Whyte. Contrast that to the asinine response from the high and mighty race relations commissioner: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11301500 It makes you wonder whether she even read the whole thing before casting judgement. He clearly states that Maori are very different from aristocracy, his point being that this difference is not an excuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. WineOh (624 comments) says:

    I used to work in a finance organisation involved with private student loans to medical students. As part of the application process, we had to confirm their registration with the relevant NZ medical school, and their academic transcript. I had personally narrowly missed out on entry to Auckland Med School based on my Bursary score, which was a solid ‘A’ Bursary but was a few marks away from the entry criteria to get an interview. I had numerous applications across my desk for Maori and Pacific Islander applicants with ‘B’ Bursary scores. Were they entered under the a level playing field, there is no way that they would have been accepted for med school. Obviously it rankled with me slightly that if I were from a different upbringing that I would probably have been accepted.

    At the time, the political rationale was that Maori were under-represented in the medical fields, and that it was believed that a step towards improving Maori health outcomes was to increase the number of Maori doctors. The idea being that Maori patients will respond better to those of their own culture (hard to argue against that actually) and studies implied better attendance rates for medical consults, and higher compliance rates on following medications.

    I’ll go a step further and say that once in Med School I do NOT believe there was any scholastic advantage given to Maori or Pacific students. Med school study is notorious for being extremely rigorous and has a surprisingly low attrition rate after the first couple years. I would have no qualms about accepting treatment from a Maori doctor as they have clearly passed all the relevant qualifications to be able to practice medicine.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. CharlieBrown (986 comments) says:

    I do think having maori seats is despicable as it allows a disproportionate representation of those maori with those beliefs. I’m sure alot of maori identify with other demographics over their maori heritage. I for one identify with the following in order:
    Working Families
    Fathers
    Libertarian
    Christians
    Regional NZ
    Scottish Descent

    Yet – to have deliberate allocation of any government service or representation on any of those things is repugnant and condescending. That is why I also believe having electorate seats is nearly as bad as having maori seats. As I identify with where I live far less than I do on other things and would rather be represented on what I believe. Imagine if I lived in a heavily labour electorate, my electorate vote is completely pointless.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Psycho Milt (2,401 comments) says:

    itstricky- you are getting spanked mate…

    There’s a difference between “getting lots of downticks from dim bulbs” and “getting spanked” – it’s a tough one for a lot of Kiwiblog commenters, admittedly…

    Yes, that is Liberalism. ‘So long as two consenting blah blah blah………’

    Well, yes, quite. You seem to have left out the bit in which you mount a devastating rebuttal that clearly demonstrates why the consenting blah blah blahs shouldn’t be left to go about their business. Is it coming in part 2 of your comment?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. IC5000 (81 comments) says:

    Amusing to hear a cambridge educated ex-management consultant and university don rage against the aristocratic privilege of a colonised and conquored minority in excellent BBC style received pronunciation. I eagerly await the next outstanding policy innovation which will quite rightly propel ACT above the margin of error.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. David Garrett (6,912 comments) says:

    So Psycho…You cant quite grasp the difference between statute and common law either huh? Well, I’ve tried my best….

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. adze (2,057 comments) says:

    On a more serious note. It’s hard to argue against Whyte’s arguments as a matter of principle, and it is for this reason that many of the “rebuttals” have predictably been slurs or other personal attacks.

    Having said that, the Maori seats and roll are not things I am particularly concerned about – at the end of the day they are still one vote, one person (I would resist something like a Maori “Upper house” that Harawira once talked about, however).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Griff (7,212 comments) says:

    Statute law Electoral law very clearly treats Maori differently.
    Correct me please lawyers if this is not statute law
    This was due to the historic time when only landowners could vote and all Maori land was held by groups so disfranchised Maori
    This reason no longer exists and They are represented by enough mps outside of the Maori seats to satisfy proportional representation by population. There is no reason besides entrenched privileged to keep such a skewed system in place in this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. David Garrett (6,912 comments) says:

    Adze: It’s not just Harawira…Sharples referred to a Maori Upper House in his valedictory..

    Griff: No, you are quite rule…all laws pertaining to the Maori seats and the Maori electoral roll are statutory…funny…the idiot seems to have gone quiet… Perhaps he’s got it now…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Viking2 (11,338 comments) says:

    dime (9,441 comments) says:
    July 30th, 2014 at 5:34 pm

    “Some maori doctors will be in a better position to treat many maori patients, mainly due to better communication and understanding of cultural background etc”

    Lmao like half the Maoris out there know anything about their culture.

    Been to a hospital lately? Perfect example of super citizens. Special Maori shit everywhere. Tons of jobs for Maori too. Doing cultural garbage.

    =======================
    well dime just had 10 days in Waikato.

    Hardly a maori in sight and never saw one on the nursing staff.
    The place is run by Philipino’s and Indians and Malaysians.
    Competent, kind, respectful.
    Asking about, this is common thru many hospitals.

    First class and probably another Tony Ryall initiative. Our health system would be in serious fail without them.

    Interesting to note that many of the men patients were Maori. Met and talked with a couple of fine Maori guys who expressed displeasure at the way their race behaved. One was a top sportsman from the past and what a great person.

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

    ‘…..did you not notice the bit where Whyte pointed out that National also pander to race based privelege?

    Is Rural a race?…”

    LOL Grendal, AG like Jamie Whyte are talking about privilage in general – and giving examples – Jamie’s were around race and sex while AG’s were about location. There really is no differance. School zoning and deciles privilage some kids over others.

    In a nut shell, discrimination is a generalisation. Some people will be helped, serviced, provided for ect but do don’t need it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Psycho Milt (2,401 comments) says:

    So Psycho…You cant quite grasp the difference between statute and common law either huh? Well, I’ve tried my best….

    Oh, I get it. I just figure that if Whyte isn’t bothered about the different way the law enforcement and justice systems treat Maori when it comes to arrest and sentencing, he’s got a cheek complaining they’re “privileged” by a few common law provisions that amount to a fraction of fuck-all in comparison.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. adze (2,057 comments) says:

    “Jamie’s were around race and sex while AG’s were about location.”

    That was actually a weak example though – location is not something unchanging from birth. A family might resist moving from an area due to historical connections or because it is favourable – but that’s not comparable to gender or ethnicity.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. adze (2,057 comments) says:

    “I just figure that if Whyte isn’t bothered about the different way the law enforcement and justice systems treat Maori when it comes to arrest and sentencing”

    So how do you feel about NZ prison population being 94% male PM? Does that justify male privilege, statutory or not?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. flipper (3,922 comments) says:

    Anyone seriously interested in this issue, as opposed to mouthing bullshit should go to the following address, to read the speech that Whyte delivered in New Plymouth about two hours ago.

    He sticks the issue right up the media, Turia and, by inference, Devoy, silly child that she is. It is excellent stuff that Collins, Rutherford, Finlayson et al should read and heed!

    To be blunt: Disregard the media spin. Read his words, and I say this as a National member and voter.

    http://www.act.org.nz/?q=act-party-leader-jamie-whyte

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. David Garrett (6,912 comments) says:

    Psycho: You’re a dickhead….and I mean that in a kind and caring way…Maori are treated differently in arrest and sentencing BECAUSE THEY COMMIT MORE CRIME…particularly violent crime…

    Quite why that is, I am buggered if I know….but logic and common sense tell me it’s got fuck all to do with “colonization” or loss of land 6 or 8 generations ago…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. itstricky (1,761 comments) says:

    David,

    if I wanted my “kaumatua” to speak for me on a matter entirely unrelated to the evidence the Judge would refuse, and threaten both me and the kaumatua with contempt if I pushed it…If I wanted the hearing at the local rugby club in the presence of the portraits of my long dead heroes, ditto… (As regulars will know I don’t give a damn about the national obsession, but the point is just as valid)

    Not really, because your local rugby club isn’t a significant indigenous location, where indigenous law would have been enacted. And you already have available the significant indigenous location of your ancestors. It is called The Court, right? So you already have what they (Maori) have been given in having this. In fact, Maori could argue exactly the point you are arguing but in reverse. So, yes, diddums – you have the courts, which are your “Marae” – do you want more?

    And your kaumatua? Your lawyer. One could argue that kaumatua speak a hell of a lot more sense than lawyers.

    that’s the one that has “Act” on the end of the title, and is composed of sections – and COMMON LAW which is what the Judges say it is in some particular area?

    So your argument is that on a case-by-case basis the Judge may make a different sentencing decision for Maori? Well, anyone with a lawyer can do that, can’t they? Just as the Judge might (under request) make exception for a bankrupt to pay their dues in a particular way, so that they do actually pay them, for a Muslim to be exempt from community service during a holy time or a disabled criminal to be excused from a sentence of physical labour, or any other manner of random things that are common sense depending on the facts of the sentencing at the time. That still doesn’t mean the statute law, or common law, provides different justice based on race.

    Treaty related exceptions and Affirmative Action type, granted. But nobody gets given difference justice based on their race, which is what you are trying to imply.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. SW (237 comments) says:

    Sorry for calling you a disgraced politician David :)

    I was just kidding really. I still don’t think your argument would judicial scrutiny. Kiwiblog upticks, while nice, are far from a measure of sound argument much of the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. itstricky (1,761 comments) says:

    funny…the idiot seems to have gone quiet… Perhaps he’s got it now…

    Perhaps he’s got a life that doesn’t revolve around pissing his weight around blogs and calling people out to his house down the road, over the bridge, 583 metres down the road, David?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. CharlieBrown (986 comments) says:

    People that still believe in the allocation of maori electorate seats, why do you think we need them? It is mmp isn’t it, why not just give your party vote to the party of the candidate you want? It is a proportional system isn’t it.

    Why is your identification as being maori more privileged than my identification of being a libertarian? Or my identification of being male? Or Christian? Or a father?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. dime (9,788 comments) says:

    New guy with the Maori doctor question…

    Why the fuck do Maori need a doctor of their own race?

    Am I supposed to believe the Maoris I know need some cultural bs when they are trying to get some penicillin to fix a dose?

    Do you know how much training doctors and nurses have to do to learn about Maori shit? Our health system is dedicated to knowing the principles of the treaty etc

    Ask a nurse from Aussie who’s moved here what extra qualifications they had to do on arrival, the answer – two papers on Maori.

    Why do you think Maori are so backward they can only deal with other Maoris?

    Can you only deal with whatever race you are?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Nostalgia-NZ (5,083 comments) says:

    ‘This would benefit Blues players over the short-term. They would win many more games than they now do. But giving the Blues this advantage in the rules would reduce their incentive to work hard on their skills and fitness. After a while, standards of play at the Blues would decline. Fewer Blues players would be selected for the All Blacks.

    Return to those half-brothers I mentioned earlier: one Pakeha who will need an “A” to get into law school, one Maori who will need only a “C”. Which one is more likely to work hard at school? Which one is more likely to make the most of his potential?’

    A rugby team playing under ‘special’ rules against an opponent doesn’t happen, how that could relate to All Blacks and a reducing of standards within the Blues is nonsense. Giving a hypothetical comparison that is an impossibility, is delusional except for the bewildered.

    Moving on to the ‘half brothers,’ what is there to suggest that one will work less hard than another, oh I know – one is lazy. Got it.

    Jamie is proving quite disappointing. I had anticipated something more substantial from him. He makes generalisations that ignite certain, anticipated wicks – that Maori are benefitted or bludging in some way – clearly he is against that. Of course, once he considers his own position of apparently bludging, he will ensure that ACT do not benefit by ‘coat tailing’ their way into Government by getting a ‘nod and a wink’ in Epsom. Way to go Jamie.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. CharlieBrown (986 comments) says:

    Nostalgia – i take it you didn’t read his speach. Your comments about generalisations is bloody hypocritical.

    BTW – ACT got into parliament in 2008 without nationals backing. There is nothing to say they wouldn’t this time either.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Nostalgia-NZ (5,083 comments) says:

    Didn’t read the full speech, the statements should support themselves in isolation – they don’t. Yes about 2008. Also yes to ACT entering Parliament without ‘help’ this time around. Surely you don’t want them to be in a ‘privileged’ position Charlie Brown?

    Cheers.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Scott Chris (6,013 comments) says:

    The number of idiots on this thread is reflected in the number of thumbs up that fool Garrett gets. How the fuck did that brainless twit ever make it into parliament?

    As for Whyte – what facile and shallow reasoning for a guy who purports to be a philosopher. (Jesus fucking Christ what a stupid analogy he used in comparing Maori to the pre-revolution French Aristocracy :roll: )

    He’s a philosopher no more. He’s now a fully fledged politician.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. The Silent Majority (85 comments) says:

    I must admit that I started out as a bit of a cynic about Jamie Whyte (as one should!) but I must say that the more I read of him and watch of him the more I like him. I like the clarity of his communications. I wish he was also the Epsom candidate.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. The Silent Majority (85 comments) says:

    Charlie Brown you said “BTW – ACT got into parliament in 2008 without nationals backing. There is nothing to say they wouldn’t this time either.” From memory in 2008 Rodney Hide and john key had coffee at Robert Harris cafe in Remuera just before the election. A great photo of that meeting was taken and ACT used it in the final newspaper ad they placed days before the election. The ad was titled “They’re Talking”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. hubbers (231 comments) says:

    “It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones. ”
    ― Niccolò Machiavelli

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    “Where today are the Pequot? Where are the Narragansett, the Mohican, the Pokanoket, and many other once powerful tribes of our people? They have vanished before the avarice and the oppression of the White Man, as snow before a summer sun. Will we let ourselves be destroyed in our turn without a struggle, give up our homes, our country bequeathed to us by the Great Spirit, the graves of our dead and everything that is dear and sacred to us? I know you will cry with me, ‘Never! Never!'” – – Tecumseh.

    “The white people, who are trying to make us over into their image, they want us to be what they call “assimilated,” bringing the Indians into the mainstream and destroying our own way of life and our own cultural patterns. They believe we should be contented like those whose concept of happiness is materialistic and greedy, which is very different from our way.

    We want freedom from the white man rather than to be intergrated. We don’t want any part of the establishment, we want to be free to raise our children in our religion, in our ways, to be able to hunt and fish and live in peace. We don’t want power, we don’t want to be congressmen, or bankers….we want to be ourselves. We want to have our heritage, because we are the owners of this land and because we belong here.

    The white man says, there is freedom and justice for all. We have had “freedom and justice,” and that is why we have been almost exterminated. We shall not forget this.” – – From the 1927 Grand Council of American Indians

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. DJP6-25 (1,349 comments) says:

    David Garrett 4:22 pm. You win hands down. National, Labour, and the GIMPs support institutional racism. ACT does not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. lolitasbrother (621 comments) says:

    i read that garter is out threatening people again, molesting

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Inthisdress (176 comments) says:

    Where Whyte is accurate is when he says that privilege breeds contempt and highlights inequality, and weakens the mind. Which ironically is of course why so many Maori resent the way white colonialism has treated them, and why so many privileged people here talk such badly informed nonsense about ‘privilege’.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. itstricky (1,761 comments) says:

    The number of idiots on this thread is reflected in the number of thumbs up that fool Garrett gets.

    He seems to have disappeared now. Maybe “he gets it”. I mean KBers don’t sleep, do they? I expect him to be up at 3am replying to me.

    How the fuck did that brainless twit ever make it into parliament?

    He clearly has his knowledge so I wouldn’t go that far but when he frequently breaks into name calling, stereotypes, and “calling people out” you can see how he exited Parliament.

    As for Whyte – what facile and shallow reasoning for a guy who purports to be a philosopher.

    Absolutely. And no matter the “reasoning” fail, he’s no new arguments or ideas, just the same old shallow crap. He certainly has made the transition.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. tom hunter (4,656 comments) says:

    I see Mr Whyte has now written the following about Tariania Turia

    Here is a woman who leads a party with an explicitly race-based agenda, who represents an electorate in which only people of one race are permitted to vote, and she accuses me of being racist. And what racist thing did I do? I suggested that the law should pay no heed to race!

    There are utilitarian arguments to be made for such things and they have been made in this thread, but as Whyte says, a person with a race-based agenda, elected by people of only one race, really should not be pointing the finger about who is a racist and who is not.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    You seem to be following Whyte’s lead in calling the Maori Party, and Tariana Turia, racist. Don’t you think that’s unduly pejorative? I always connect racism with ideas of power, not with ideas of minority representation.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Judith (8,531 comments) says:

    Aren’t political parties all about representing the interests of a particular group?

    Does anyone believe that our PM, who features in the small group of our top wealthiest people, is representing the interests of the majority who earn less than 1/5 of his income per year, many of whom don’t even fully own their car, let alone a house?

    Does anyone believe that Labour is not representing the interests of the unions, and supposedly the group of lower income earners?

    All political parties are there because they represent a particular group in society above another.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Colville (2,237 comments) says:

    Mike @ 9.21.
    You dont think Tariana has power because of the colour of her skin?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Colville
    I’m saying that I don’t believe her political position is an example of racism, no.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. tom hunter (4,656 comments) says:

    Sure mm, the old, it’s not racist unless it can wield power, theory. A staple of university thinking for three decades now.

    So at what stage would an explicitly race-based agenda run by a party elected by people of only one race, become racist? When they’re in government and able to implement laws and bylaws?:

    Judge Joanna Maze said Manderson’s actions were a “sacrilege” to those for whom Aoraki/Mt Cook was culturally significant. She handed down a fine of $3,750.

    The mountain, the highest in New Zealand, is a sacred symbol to Ngai Tahu which has rangatiratanga and manawhenua over the mountain.

    I’ll leave you to think about the power imbalances based on race that are involved in this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Judith (8,531 comments) says:

    Colville (2,082 comments) says:
    July 31st, 2014 at 9:29 am
    Mike @ 9.21.
    You dont think Tariana has power because of the colour of her skin?

    If Tariana had power due to the colour of her skin, then why do we have so many Maori in prison, why aren’t Maori dominating the top positions in Big Business. Why aren’t Maori sitting on the land they once owned, and why aren’t they dominant in the top income earners in our country?

    If power was determined by the colour of Maori skin, then believe me, you wouldn’t be able to make the comment you just did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    “You dont think Tariana has power because of the colour of her skin?”

    No. She was elected to Parliament. She has power because of democracy.

    I don’t agree with everything she says, she’s too left wing for me, but I do think the Maori Party has been a constructive partner for National, and they deserves respect for their willingness to partner with National despite intense criticism from the more extreme elements in Maoridom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    “I’ll leave it to you to think about the power imbalances based on race that are involved in this case.”

    I normally agree with almost everything you post Tom, but not in this case. I did not see any evidence of a power imbalance based on race in that case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    So, tom, you are happy for helicopters to hover wherever the pilot damn well pleases?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. tom hunter (4,656 comments) says:

    Quicker on questions than debate eh? Thank goodness I had 4 minutes for the edit.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Yes, sorry about that – I didn’t pick up on your link at first.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Griff (7,212 comments) says:

    No. She was elected to Parliament. She has power because of democracy.
    :lol:
    she has power because of perversion of democracy.

    Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or indirectly through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws

    It is not equal when I can not vote in the Maori seats due to my race.

    that is apartheid
    a system or practice that separates people according to race, caste, etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    “Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or indirectly through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws

    It is not equal when I can not vote in the Maori seats due to my race.”

    Yes, it’s still democracy Griff, one person and one vote. That’s not apartheid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    It might be apartheid if one group was denied the vote, but New Zealand patently does not have such a system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. tom hunter (4,656 comments) says:

    I did not see any evidence of a power imbalance based on race in that case.

    A racial group has made a racial (and frankly religious) claim about a piece of land – rangatiratanga, manawhenua – and has been able to financially punish an individual using laws and bylaws that they advocated the state should impose. But you just can’t see the power imbalance involved.

    Okay then, I guess we’re lost as a society.

    There are no questions raised here about safety or damage to the mountain, no attempt made (at least in the report) to define the difference between a helicopter “hovering” and a passenger jet overflying at 10,000m. Manawhenua and rangatiratanga appear to be like the so-called radar “bubble” of a SAM unit.

    So we’re left with a purely race-based claim of “offence”, with the religious overtones of “sacrilege” that restricts what a person can do. I thought society was gradually escaping from such things and in any other context than race it is. Clever, clever post-modernists.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    “A racial group has made a racial (and frankly religious) claim about a piece of land – rangatiratanga, manawhenua – and has been able to financially punish an individual using laws and bylaws that they advocated the state should impose. But you just can’t see the power imbalance involved.”

    No. My own tribe has sovereignty over their lands, including regulations and bylaws about how that land can be used.

    That’s not racial imbalance, it’s property rights. And property rights include the right to impose restrictions for any reason, including religious ones, which as a conservative I have no problem with.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. MC2000 (18 comments) says:

    I get it Dime. You don’t think that using preferential entry to get more Maori doctors will help Maori health. You may be right, you may be wrong. But my question to you is – even if it did help – would you still oppose preferential entry?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Mr_Blobby (158 comments) says:

    I think this Devoid nobody has dropped the ball.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    I think Shawn has it about right – Look at restrictions over Aoraki in the light of property rights rather than racial ‘privilege’. I don’t rule out the need for legislative protection for wahi tapu on cultural, including religious, grounds though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. tom hunter (4,656 comments) says:

    I’d forgotten that Ngai Tahu own Aorangi so no problems and … oh wait.

    It’s more accurately described as clashing ownership rights over the same piece of public property. The chopper pilot’s right to “hover” near the peak of a mountain that he “publicly” owns has been trumped by a race-based claim that such an act is “sacrilege” for the same piece of property that they “publicly” own. There’s always a power imbalance between the individual and society, that’s why we should be careful about enabling such power based on racial/religious claims, especially when it’s about what is “offensive”. That principle used to be upheld as a good thing in Western society.

    I recognise that the whole of society – at least within the bounds of representative democracy – has accepted this race-based claim of sacrilege and offence over a piece of public property. That does not make it any more morally right but then that’s often the case with society’s laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Griff (7,212 comments) says:

    That’s not apartheid.

    a system or practice that separates people according to race, caste, etc.
    It is not equal if i can not vote in parts of our electoral process due only to race
    I suggest you check the representation numbers for votes
    http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2011/electorateindex.html
    In the Maori electorates around 20,000 votes to select a winner.
    For the rest of us around 35,000 votes
    My vote is not equal to a vote on the Maori roll
    Perversion of democracy
    Special rights and privilege for Maori. One Maori voter has more effect than one non Maori due to the perverted racist system.
    Add the perversion that the five percent rule creates. Maori under the five percent threshold are guaranteed that their special interest party’s will get in when mine will not.

    Just because you agree with the result of apartheid doesn’t stop it being apartheid.

    Just because you support the racism doesn’t stop it from being racist.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    “In a significant gesture, the Crown agreed to include in its Settlement Offer the return of Aoraki to Ngāi Tahu. Once the Crown has gifted Aoraki to Ngāi Tahu the tribe will gift Aoraki to the nation as an enduring symbol of their commitment to the co-management of areas of high historic, cultural and conservation value.

    The first step in the process will be for the Crown to vest the title to Aoraki in Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. This title will confirm the special relationship that Ngāi Tahu has with the mountain and all that it represents, and in particular the pivotal role that the mountain plays in our southern creation stories.”

    http://ngaitahu.iwi.nz/ngai-tahu/the-settlement/settlement-offer/aoraki/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    Griff, just because you call it apartheid and racism does not make it so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Griff
    Apartheid was a political system used to deny political participation (and a whole lot of other things) on the basis of race. What political participation is being denied in New Zealand by what you call ‘apartheid’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. dime (9,788 comments) says:

    “I get it Dime. You don’t think that using preferential entry to get more Maori doctors will help Maori health. You may be right, you may be wrong. But my question to you is – even if it did help – would you still oppose preferential entry?”

    How bout this. They can have preferential entry but they are only able to practice medicine on people who identify as Maori.

    I dont think it is right to have sub par doctors. but if maori want em, fill ya boots! just sign the waiver.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. dime (9,788 comments) says:

    MC2000 – would you back preferential tax cuts for white people? based on the percentage of white people drawing welfare compared to brown, we are being hard done by.

    These tax cuts for whiteys would help white people a lot. you ok with that?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    ‘I dont think it is right to have sub par doctors’
    There is no evidence that medical students who receive preferential entry go on to be any less competent than other doctors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. tom hunter (4,656 comments) says:

    I’m well aware of the law Shawn, and that settlement. Clearly it confers considerable power on the tribe of Ngai Tahu, including power over people not of its tribe, and it’s racially based. It seems like a good fit even for the post-modern definition of racism – racial beliefs enabled by power, especially the power of the state.

    One can accept it as a piece of utilitarian pragmatism. That still does not make it right, nor what happened to that chopper pilot.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. All_on_Red (1,546 comments) says:

    Mikey
    Pakeha can’t vote on the Maori role

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Griff (7,212 comments) says:

    Redefine words according to your racist views as much as you want it only exposes your racism more
    apartheid has two definitions.
    The one you insist is the only one is referring to only the system practiced in south Africa.

    In the context I have used the meaning of the word when not specifically used in the context of south Africa.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apartheid
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apartheid
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apartheid

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Redbaiter (8,234 comments) says:

    ACT Leader Dr Jamie Whyte calls Dame Susan Devoy to resign
    Thursday, 31 July 2014, 10:10 am
    Press Release: ACT New Zealand

    ACT Leader Dr Jamie Whyte calls Dame Susan Devoy to resign

    Dame Susan Devoy has responded to my speech calling for racial equality by publicly condemning it as “grotesque and inflammatory”.

    That would be nothing more than a sign of ignorance if she were still a professional squash player.

    But she is no longer a squash professional. She is the Commissioner for Race Relations. Her role is specified in legislation.

    Nowhere does the legislation say that, unlike other senior state bureaucrats, the Commissioner of Race Relations’ role involves engaging in political campaigns to support particular parties, such as the Mana-Internet Party and the Maori Party.

    It is astounding that the Commissioner of Race Relations should condemn me for promoting legal equality between the races.

    If Ms Devoy believes that a person’s legal rights should depend on the race of her parents, and if she believes that she should use her state-funded position to promote the electoral prospects of race-based political parties, then she is unfit to hold her position as the Commissioner of Race Relations.

    She should resign today.

    ends

    Spot on.

    Courage to you Mr. Whyte.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. ShawnLH (4,481 comments) says:

    Griff, I don’t think someone who regularly describes Maori as savages who needed to be civilized has got a leg to stand on with regards to accusations of racism.

    Tom, property rights are property rights. And in this case they are tribally based, not racially based. The property rights conferred by Parliament to Ngai Tahu are not based on being racially Maori, or they would apply to all Maori, but on tribal membership which only applies to Ngai Tahu.

    Do you believe that Native Americans having rights to their own lands is racism?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Griff (7,212 comments) says:

    Again you twist words spawn

    Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. It often takes the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently

    culture is not race
    I dislike the pre contact Maori culture and consider it to be savage destructive violent and abusive
    I dont think the all Maori are savage destructive violent and abusive because of their race.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Unity (477 comments) says:

    Shawn, you say property rights of Maori are tribally based, not racially based. However, the point is that tribes are today being awarded property they are not entitled to. Most have been sold, not once but several times. Ngai Tahu have had 5 full and final settlements and they were completely satisfied with each one apart from the first one. Now what does full and final really mean? On top of that they have received a huge amount for a top-up when another tribe was awarded more than their settlement. These current settlements are based on invented Principles of the Treaty put into legislation in the 1980’s. They bear absolutely no relationship with the Treaty and grievances were settled before the mid 1950’s. The Waitangi Tribunal investigates each and every claim and always approves what the tribes want even with little or no evidence to back their claims. They are corrupt and should have long been disbanded. No non-Maori are allowed to appeal what is granted, the deals are done in Chris Finlayson’s office without going through the Courts and on top of that he is Attorney General – a gross conflict of interest. The whole grievance industry today is fraudulent and should be halted. Two thirds of NZ was sold before the Treaty was signed. Much of the land was returned to Maori who then resold it under strict guidelines of the Government. However, that hasn’t stopped some land being sold several times.

    Maybe we will get a Party with a bit of influence into Parliament to rein the current Prime Minister in. He is destroying our country with his appeasing policies and causing huge divisions which are growing by the week.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Brian Smaller (4,036 comments) says:

    Mikey
    Pakeha can’t vote on the Maori role

    Actually I think you can. I stand to be corrected but to be the Maori electoral roll you only have to feel a sense of Maoriness or some other waffly term. There is no DNA test or anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. tom hunter (4,656 comments) says:

    tribally based, not racially based.

    Given that membership of a tribe begins with race that is a difference without a distinction.

    Do you believe that Native Americans having rights to their own lands is racism?

    As long as it “their own lands” – no. They can do what they like, although I would note that there will still be limits imposed by the state over what they can do. Given your background are you aware of similar situations with National Parks in the USA? Situations where covenants exist over activities on public lands made on the basis of racial/religious claims to the land made by American Indians? I recall there was the “Peyote smoking” case some years ago that passed muster with SCOTUS, but I wonder if there’s been anything similar related to tribal rights of control over public property?

    Perhaps we should have just dispensed with the nonsense that Mt Cook National Park is public land and simply handed it over to Nagi Tahu lock, stock, and barrel?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. dime (9,788 comments) says:

    “‘I dont think it is right to have sub par doctors’
    There is no evidence that medical students who receive preferential entry go on to be any less competent than other doctors.”

    im sure none top the class either.

    personally, if i found out my doctor couldnt get into medical school on merit, i would go somewhere else.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Viking2 (11,338 comments) says:

    So Whyte has upped the anti and told Devoy to resign for being dumb and uneducated. (which she is.)

    Good stuff

    Whyte lobs resignation call at Devoy over race comments

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11301977

    Go Whyte and attack a few more Stupid Sacred Cows.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. KevinH (1,192 comments) says:

    Neither the historical record or the current status quo support Dr. Whyte’s assertion that Maori are legally privileged, our legal system is modelled on the Westminster system and our Head of State is a foreigner, further to that the majority of laws and regulations enacted by New Zealand’s parliament favour the dominant European population.
    I listened to Dr. Whyte on NewstalkZB today and he reiterated his view that Maori enjoy legal privilege which is nonsense and a complete lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. CharlieBrown (986 comments) says:

    KevinH – “enacted by New Zealand’s parliament favour the dominant European population.”

    Please provide examples? And to be exact, please provide examples in law that stipulate a condition that explicitly causes unfavorable outcomes to maori?

    Any reference of race in law is a farce. It is condescending to people of that race that try to get ahead the same way as others. An in particular the maori seats are disgracefully for a proportional parliament. It is absurd to have maori seats but not have seats set aside for libertarians, or christians, or fathers. There is nothing stopping maori from forming their own party and getting in on the party vote if they feel strongly enough about it. In a First past the post system you could argue with some merit that maori seats are needed, but not in MMP.

    Can someone please tell me why Maori need dedicated electorate seats and christians don’t?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. deadrightkev (396 comments) says:

    “Again it is good he stated this. Overall Maori are not privileged.”

    What utter crap DPF. What planet have you been living on since 1985?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Scott1 (499 comments) says:

    For one thing – Maori are disadvantaged by being culturally pressured to, amongst other things, learn a language that will be of no economically practical use to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. deadrightkev (396 comments) says:

    For the benefit of DPF regarding Maori privilege:

    https://treatygate.wordpress.com/category/politics/chris-finlayson/

    The issue is not if all Maori at the bottom of the heap get the privilege being doled out, those that get the taxpayers funds via National and the Waitangi Tribunal do.

    The truth is that the ToW was not signed by two parties to encourage separatism but that is what Labour and National have supported and encouraged with their policies since 1985.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.