The Dim-Post

April 28, 2011

Why Brash is a racist

Filed under: history,Politics — danylmc @ 5:59 pm

The whole Brash/race argument comes down to this:

Brash: We shouldn’t have race based electoral seats or laws because everyone should be equal.

The left: That’s racist.

Brash: Ah, but how can it be racist for me to insist that all races be treated equally?

Brash is right, of course. If we started a new society tomorrow, a blank slate, there would be no race based laws or Maori electorates. The thing is, we’re not a blank slate – we’re New Zealand and we have about 700 years of history preceding Don Brash. The Maori arrived, then Europeans, and they signed the Treaty of Waitangi, and citing the provisions of the treaty Maori were granted seats in Parliament and then the treaty was not honoured, there were land grabs and a civil war with an ambiguous outcome, and over a period of roughly a hundred years Maori became the most disadvantaged members of our society, and then for decades successive governments all agreed that they had been mistreated and introduced various mechanisms to address their grievances.

Then Brash shows up demanding to know why Maori are getting such special treatment: ‘Why can’t we all just be equals?’

Brash’s appeal for equality is based on the idea that we have no history. Nothing happened before now: we just have a bunch of laws that privilege Maori over others, for no apparent reason and so it’s only fair and just that we get rid of them.

And here’s why Brash is a racist – his appeal that we forget our history is restricted solely to our history of race relations. He gave a dozen interviews over ANZAC weekend and while he said plenty about Maori and race and equality he never whispered a word about ANZAC’s historic meaning. He doesn’t appear to have an opinion on why our head of state is a Queen living in a castle on the other side of the world. Those are huge anachronisms if you’re starting from an ahistoric context. But Brash doesn’t care about any of those other issues. He just wants us to ignore our history and then change our society in a highly specific way that disadvantages the members of a single race.

(Update: Reworded the section about the treaty to avoid confusion.)

About these ads

196 Comments »

  1. This is the best (and potentially most important) post you’ve done.

    Comment by david c — April 28, 2011 @ 6:04 pm

  2. Don’t mention the Moriori. That would upset the whole “first nation” house of cards.

    Comment by DavidW — April 28, 2011 @ 6:06 pm

  3. It’s also interesting given that these Objectivist liberterians believe so heavily in contract law and the protection of private contract from physical force. The continuous breaches of the Treaty on both these topics should see them up in arms about how Maori have had property rights they never contractually gave up forcifully taken from them…

    Comment by garethw — April 28, 2011 @ 6:09 pm

  4. Don’t mention the Moriori. That would upset the whole “first nation” house of cards.

    Oh bullshit. Redress for historical grievances has nothing to do with who was “first”, and everything to do with who was fucked over. /trollfeeding

    Comment by James Butler — April 28, 2011 @ 6:10 pm

  5. Do you envisage any scenario in which Maori will no longer need the “various mechanisms to address their grievances” (the reason for which, you state, is to make up for historic misdeeds)?

    Comment by radar — April 28, 2011 @ 6:11 pm

  6. Not unrelated, I think, to what Pita Sharples was getting at a while back – something like “We’d LOVE it if everyone was treated equally.”

    There’s more specific things; like how Brash is joining the party that ran the white-fear side of the argument against bringing Maori any closer to exercising their (ahem) property rights over the foreshore etc.

    Comment by lyndon — April 28, 2011 @ 6:12 pm

  7. One of the best defences of “race-based policy” I’ve ever read is this: not because it’s necessarily any more well reasoned or comprehensive than any other, but because Garth George wrote it. Seriously, if he can get his head around the issue, anyone can.

    Comment by James Butler — April 28, 2011 @ 6:15 pm

  8. “Don’t mention the Moriori. That would upset the whole “first nation” house of cards.”

    not really, because the Moriori only ever lived in the Chatham Islands. comes with potentially a lot of seabed, but not much else.

    Comment by Kahikatea — April 28, 2011 @ 6:17 pm

  9. 7.One of the best defences of “race-based policy” I’ve ever read is this: not because it’s necessarily any more well reasoned or comprehensive than any other, but because Garth George wrote it. Seriously, if he can get his head around the issue, anyone can.

    Comment by James Butler — April 28, 2011 @ 6:15 pm

    Wow. Are you sure this is not some kind of hoax??

    Comment by Me Too — April 28, 2011 @ 6:23 pm

  10. Ditto on the hoax call – I am floored that’s Garth George and am presumedly missing a joke somewhere

    Comment by garethw — April 28, 2011 @ 6:26 pm

  11. The only workable explanation I have for that Garth George piece is that he wrote it, put a post it note on it saying “HAWHAWHAW, I crack myself up,” and then lost the note and submitted it.

    Comment by Rowan Crawford — April 28, 2011 @ 6:28 pm

  12. That would upset the whole “first nation” house of cards.

    I’m not sure what the relevance of the indigenous people of the Chatham Islands is, or why that would have any effect on the justice of Maori claims. But feel free to explain.

    Comment by Stephen Judd — April 28, 2011 @ 6:29 pm

  13. “There’s more specific things; like how Brash is joining the party that ran the white-fear side of the argument against bringing Maori any closer to exercising their (ahem) property rights over the foreshore etc.”

    Just the opposite in fact.. as stated by Wikipedia “ACT opposed it on the grounds of the legislation being retrospective, that it was a denial of property rights (in this case Māori property rights), and that it was an unwarranted incursion by the Crown into areas that were specifically Tikanga Māori [1]”

    The better question is how either ACT or Brash will reconcile their then opposing views on the f&S Act.. but then, in recent weeks Brash has admitted he got some things wrong in this area. IMO, ACT had the most principled opposition to the legislation.

    JC

    Comment by JC — April 28, 2011 @ 6:31 pm

  14. The Moriori are a Māori iwi and not, contrary to what Elston Best claimed, a precursor people to the Māori.

    Comment by Matthew Dentith — April 28, 2011 @ 6:32 pm

  15. And that pretty much sums up the neoliberal economic agenda and Don Brash’s thinking – they only really function in an ahistorical manner because in lived history they fail every time.

    Comment by Anthony — April 28, 2011 @ 6:35 pm

  16. The Moriori are not a Maori iwi, but a separate people with while skin and orange hair. I should know, because I am decended from them. An (unmixed) group of us remained hidden in the forest and we reappeared after Europeans turned up and just told everyone we we Scottish, except to the Scots, who we told we were Irish. We refused to claim to be Welsh.

    We went into hiding because the Maori hunted us down mercilessly in the mistaken belief that gingas just taste better. Some that serviced inter-bred with the Maori and moved to the Chatams, We knew better to stay hidden a little longer.

    We will re-emerge and announce ourselves only when we have a leader in Parliament willing to treat all races equally, We feel that time could be coming soon.

    We thought that time had come the last time the Maorjed took office, but he was married to an alien, and as any reasonable person will admit after a few drinks, Asians are not in fact from earth but arrived here several thousand years ago to conquer earth in a very circumspect and auspicious manner. Thankfully times have changed.

    Comment by paul — April 28, 2011 @ 6:47 pm

  17. Brash’s appeal for equality is based on the idea that we have no history.

    Whereas a much better argument for abolishing the Maori seats is that they’re a historical relic that were created in a specific context. Somehow, New Zealand moved past the idea that only property owners with penises were competent to vote and the world didn’t end.

    Comment by Craig Ranapia — April 28, 2011 @ 6:55 pm

  18. “…they signed the Treaty of Waitangi, and under that treaty Maori were granted seats in Parliament…”

    No it doesn’t.

    Comment by the bird is the word — April 28, 2011 @ 6:57 pm

  19. Goodness grief, the Treaty of WAitangi means almost anything if the Maoris have their way. Why can’t we all just look at the facts, people. The cold hard written words, please. Lets stop all this namby-pamby pandering to the Maoris by bending over at every opportunity to reinterpret said cold hard written words – words that have multiplied in copy to the point they may as well be cast in iron. Words. Words. Words. Words. Words. Words. They don’t change, they stay the same. They mean the same things. A word is a word is a word is not a bird. Keep it straight-on and true. Words.

    Comment by Typical Bob's Your Uncle — April 28, 2011 @ 7:03 pm

  20. “…they signed the Treaty of Waitangi, and under that treaty Maori were granted seats in Parliament…”

    No it doesn’t.

    +1.

    The Treaty has nothing like that at all. Not least because when the Treaty was signed there was no Parliament.

    Comment by Graeme Edgeler — April 28, 2011 @ 7:04 pm

  21. and under that treaty Maori were granted seats in Parliament

    Danyl: You know something, while you’re calling other people ignorant ahistorical racists you might want to try and avoid mashing up history and fantasy fiction.

    Comment by Craig Ranapia — April 28, 2011 @ 7:04 pm

  22. One thing I have wondered about, with regards to the foreshore and seabed debate, is a rational explanation of why the foreshore and seabed should not revert to the original owners (by any reasonable definition of the word) at the time of the treaty? Is all the angst due to the potential sense of shame or guilt that would suddenly descend on whitey upon the realisation they have been trespassing and stealing other peoples property over the years?

    FM

    Comment by Fooman — April 28, 2011 @ 7:07 pm

  23. You are stretching history a bit are you not?
    The Treaty of Waitangi was 1840. The Maori seats were created in 1867, by which time the Land wars were pretty much over.
    To say that under the treaty the Maori were granted seats is silly, as they were only granted the same rights as any other Europeans in New Zealand. The earliest possible date at which Maori seats can be suggested is 1852, in the UK Parliament.

    Comment by Alwyn — April 28, 2011 @ 7:08 pm

  24. Graham, Craig, I think you’ll both be aware – or you should be – that you are being a little disingenuous.

    It is on treaty grounds that Maori were given seats in Parliament.

    Surely by now you realise that it is the principles of the treaty of Waitangi as they have been defined that matter legally and politically, and that for a right to be treaty-derived it is not necessary for that specific right to be in the treaty itself. Time to retake New Zealand History 101 concurrently with Law 101, guys.

    Comment by small g — April 28, 2011 @ 7:10 pm

  25. The Treaty has nothing like that at all. Not least because when the Treaty was signed there was no Parliament.

    I’ve phrased it badly. When the seats were set up the Treaty was cited by McLean as a justification. I’ll reword it. Summarising New Zealand history in one sentence is harder than it looks.

    Comment by danylmc — April 28, 2011 @ 7:11 pm

  26. …Unless it’s sexy fantasy fiction. Although after the horror show picture of Brash&Wills on imperator fish, I’m not sure there’s room in the world for sexy anymore.

    Comment by Greg — April 28, 2011 @ 7:12 pm

  27. Almost every country you can think of has, somewhere in its history, examples of egregious treatment of ethnic / racial groups. Name one other country where treating all ethnic / racial groups equally is regarded as racist and treaing one ethic /racial group differently is regarded as non racist?

    Comment by Bob — April 28, 2011 @ 7:25 pm

  28. It is on treaty grounds that Maori were given seats in Parliament.

    Small G: That’s not actually true, but never mind… I guess we’re both going to be retaking Stage One New Zealand history. I don’t think you’re either racist or disingenuous, but any competent historian would warn against rewriting the record to fit the needs of contemporary politics. Otherwise, it’s time to start taking Glenn Beck seriously and I’m not going there.

    Comment by Craig Ranapia — April 28, 2011 @ 7:25 pm

  29. Also, if someone actively seeks the votes of racists by using rhetoric designed to appeal to them; if they have discussions about those voters and how best to get their message across to them, then I don’t think it matters if that someone shares the beliefs of the racists. The fact that you think its ok to pander to them and stir up the hornets nest is racist.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — April 28, 2011 @ 7:26 pm

  30. Good one, Danyl

    Comment by Roger Parkinson — April 28, 2011 @ 7:26 pm

  31. The Maori seats were created (in 1869) because the settler government was concerned that most Maori (men) were unable to vote because

    1: The franchise was available at the time only to men who owned individually titled property

    and

    2: Almost all Maori land was held in common ownership (though a very few Maori men had land with individual title and thus could vote)

    To ensure Maori (men) had the right to vote, the four Maori seats were created, for which all Maori (men) were able to vote for the candidate of their choice.

    The seats were limited to four in a massive gerrymander as the Maori population of the day would have entitled them to many more seats if the seats were created under a similar population basis to the settler seats (which were themselves gerrymandered in favour of country areas).

    Be that as it may, it was an extraordinary development that an indigenous population was granted a franchise in such an era.

    Australia’s indigenous population was unable fully to vote until the 1969 general election (and were not even legally citizens until a 1967 referendum). Many indigenous Americans still lack the franchise, and American blacks could note vote until 1965, 100 years after the Civil War.

    Additionally, the Treaty had been well and truly abrogated by the settlers by 1869 (most of the most blatant land thefts were before then), so the Treaty is not something that writ large in the granting of the franchise.

    Maori women achieved the franchise in 1893, at the same time as settler women.

    Curiously, voting in the Maori seats was by show of hands or calling out at a public meeting, rather than by secret ballot. This practice lasted well into the 20th century.

    Maori seats only became drawn on a population basis with the arrival of MMP in 1996.

    Comment by poneke — April 28, 2011 @ 7:33 pm

  32. JC, that’s a fir enough description of ACTs policy as far as it goes.

    Google doesn’t help me much but I seem to remember, and correct me if I’m wrong, that it took them a short while to arrive at that position, and got there when Franks decided that iwi couldn’t win in court. After that they went all in on the ‘let them have their day in court’ position.

    The position isn’t so much that iwi should have their native title restored, but rather that no such title exists.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — April 28, 2011 @ 7:33 pm

  33. Name one other country where treating all ethnic / racial groups equally is regarded as racist and treaing one ethic /racial group differently is regarded as non racist?

    I guess the US, and their civil rights/affirmative action policies are the best examples of this. They had a hundred years of slavery, then a hundred years of Jim Crow, and five seconds of affirmative action before white politicians demanded to know why blacks were now so incredibly privileged, when everybody should be EQUAL before the law.

    Comment by danylmc — April 28, 2011 @ 7:50 pm

  34. “Australia’s indigenous population was unable fully to vote until the 1969 general election (and were not even legally citizens until a 1967 referendum)”

    that’s not my understanding. It’s true that they were legally classed as native fauna until 1967, but they were mostly given voting rights in 1962, 5 years BEFORE they came to be legally recognised as human.

    Comment by Kahikatea — April 28, 2011 @ 7:58 pm

  35. “Australia’s indigenous population was unable fully to vote until the 1969 general election (and were not even legally citizens until a 1967 referendum)”

    that’s not my understanding.

    Nor mine. The suggestion that Indigenous Australians got the right to vote, or became citizens of Australia as a result on the 1967 referendum is a myth. That referendum changed the Australian Constitution by amending s 51:

    51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

    (xxvii) The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws

    (deleting the bit hopefully bolded)

    And by deleting s 127, which had read:

    In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted.

    Wikipedia has seemingly accurate information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Australia#Indigenous_Australians

    Comment by Graeme Edgeler — April 28, 2011 @ 8:31 pm

  36. Actually, some Australian Aborigines were entitled to vote right from federation (in 1901), if they knew about it and could survive the process of doing so. It’s one of the most bizarre things to have happened during federation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_of_Australian_Aborigines

    I do think Brash’s ahistorical view has some merit. I like to see it extended to cover everyone, not just Maori. And all aspects of law and property rights, not just the Treaty. What we do is sit down after the next election and divide everything up into suitably sized tradeable units, then people bid for them with their equally-apportioned newly minted currency. Sure, Brash may find that heś outbid on the clothes he’s wearing, but I’m sure he would see the funny side of that. And it would be very equal-opportunity and non-discriminatory.

    Comment by moz — April 28, 2011 @ 8:34 pm

  37. Maori seats only became drawn on a population basis with the arrival of MMP in 1996.

    True, but I would note that there was a brief period at the end of the Rowling government in 1975 where this wasn’t the case. New boundaries were never drawn, and the Muldoon Government introduced the Electoral Act 1976, the sole purpose of which was to set it back at four.

    Comment by Graeme Edgeler — April 28, 2011 @ 8:39 pm

  38. I agree with you for the most part, but surely continued ‘special assistance’ (I’m sure a better term could be coined, but fuck it) is only going to condition the group of people it benefits to only be able to operate with this special assistance in the long run, which doesn’t help anyone, and is probably quite insulting to those who are perceived to be in this group, but are quite capable of operating outside the training wheel circle.

    Comment by Bed Rater — April 28, 2011 @ 8:48 pm

  39. It’s true that they were legally classed as native fauna until 1967, but they were mostly given voting rights in 1962, 5 years BEFORE they came to be legally recognised as human.

    I don’t want to encourage the “at least we weren’t as racist as Australia” line of argument, because there was and is more than enough racism to go around in NZ. But man. Australia.

    Comment by bradluen — April 28, 2011 @ 8:56 pm

  40. Pascal @32,

    Its not hard to find ignoble motives in all aspects of the Treaty going back to before 1840.. on both sides. Perhaps the first New Zealanders were the Maori-Pakeha settlers who lived with and spoke Maori.. they warned the natives they would be slaves if they signed the Treaty, and they weren’t far wrong. Similarly the Lords in London had reservations about pursuing their normal policy of booting the natives out/off in a piddling little land 12,000 miles from the soldiery. As well, England was going through a period of the “noble savage”, and pushed through an unworkable Treaty that had to be broken to develop the country.

    Likewise in recent times it wasn’t National or ACT who said “What it is, is the same old faces. The Ken Mairs, the Harewira Family, the Annette Sykes, the haters and wreckers, the people who destroy Waitangi every year, now wanting to do a Waitangi in every town in New Zealand on the way to Wellington where they will do a Waitangi on the steps of Parliament. Is this not what New Zealand has got absolutely sick and tired of?”.. and introduced the F&S.

    You could say that I was sympathetic to that view at the time till Hide rephrased the entire argument as one of property rights. That hit me like a bullet.. how could I possibly be a conservative type without a fierce adherence to the support of property rights?
    So I had to put aside my dislike of the aforesaid activists and accept Maori had a case, that ACT was right and the Nats and Labour were wrong.

    I accept Danyl’s argument that Brash has foreshortened history in his argument, but I’m equally sure that meticulous man will produce any number of examples that history is only one strand of a legal or logical argument.. after all, the Treaty broke a history of centuries of indiscriminant tribal murder, cannibalism, slavery and thus destroyed strands of Maori culture, economy and self worth.

    JC

    Comment by JC — April 28, 2011 @ 9:01 pm

  41. Hendrik Verwoerd would congratulate Danyl on coming around to his point of view. New Zealand needs to retain its traditional race based Maori seats to maintain its “policy of good neighbourliness”.

    He’d also be looking forward to the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand later this year. For some reason when a “policy of good neighbourliness” was followed as Danyl indicates, the rest of the world eventually refused to play any rugby at all with Hendrik Verwoerd country. Weird or what?

    Comment by OECD rank 22 kiwi — April 28, 2011 @ 9:17 pm

  42. OECD – huh? that’s not even funny… and really quite insulting on a number of levels

    Comment by dylan — April 28, 2011 @ 9:34 pm

  43. Likewise in recent times it wasn’t National or ACT who said “What it is, is the same old faces. The Ken Mairs, the Harewira Family, the Annette Sykes, the haters and wreckers, the people who destroy Waitangi every year, now wanting to do a Waitangi in every town in New Zealand on the way to Wellington where they will do a Waitangi on the steps of Parliament. Is this not what New Zealand has got absolutely sick and tired of?”.. and introduced the F&S.

    Very true. That was an awful quote, and I hated the F&S Act. National’s position at the time was not better though, it was many steps worse. From virtually the day after the court finding that kicked it off English and Smith were beating a “Maori will take your beaches” drum. English’s speech to the conference that year was little different to Brash’s Orewa speech. This was deliberately divisive, and based on utter misrepresentation. I make no excuses for Clark’s words, or Labour’s actions. I usuallly vote Green as it happens.

    In 05 though, it looked like the greens might not make it. So despite my hatred of the F&S Act, and my contempt for that quote ( I was out on the parliamentary forecourt with the hikoi as it happens), I git myself good and drunk and toddled down to the voting booth to vote labour to try and keep Brash out.

    Brash and National were going to Nationalise the F&S, abolish the Maori seats, remove references to the treaty from legislation and lord knows what all else. I don’t recall ACT saying peep about their principled stand being any sort of deal breaker. To claim that labour, as awful as it was, was somehow worse given all that context is just nonsense.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — April 28, 2011 @ 9:34 pm

  44. ‘and under that treaty Maori were granted seats in Parliament’

    is a misquote. The original line was

    “…they signed the Treaty of Waitangi, and citing the provisions of the treaty Maori were granted seats in Parliament…”

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/ParlSupport/ResearchPapers/5/b/e/00PLLawRP03141-Origins-of-the-M-ori-seats.htm

    There’s a grain of truth in the real quote, btu only a grain

    Comment by **** — April 28, 2011 @ 9:45 pm

  45. JC – it’s cute you looked at the wiki entry. Perhaps the person who wrote that might be inclined to a charitable shift in emphasis? I had the joy of reading their press releases and listening to their parliamentary questions. There was quite a bit of ZOMG TEH MURRAYS GOAN EAT UR BEACHES.

    Personally, property restoration aside, I just don’t have a problem with directing a really rather small proportion of resources towards people who those resources otherwise reach less, and who tend to be worse off.

    I get the idea Brash wasn’t always that guy, it’s just this one time he ran an election campaign on it and decided he must believe this stuff after all. But I wouldn’t actually know.

    Comment by lyndon — April 28, 2011 @ 10:08 pm

  46. I think that your priors are blurring your judgment somewhat here Danyl. Things are getting a little crazy. Like the people who say that Labour, in giving benefits to the poor aims to promote a class of future voters to vote for them, you are slanting motivations.

    I don’t want to defend Brash but this post is way out there. First, I am fairly certain that, generally, he agrees with the Treaty settlement process, as that relates to property rights. If I am wrong, then that would be a clear inconsistency in Brash’s ideology and perhaps the label `racist’ would be correct. But I am pretty sure that he does believe in settling historical grievances.

    Anyway, why isn’t Brash a racist? Well, because he genuinely seems to believe that irrespective of someone’s background everyone has equal ability to achieve whatever they want. Now, I don’t believe that for a second. But I am pretty sure that Brash does. It is why he seems to think that most welfare is unnecessary, why he thinks that the state’s role in education should be limited, his fairly doctrinaire and simplistic supply side economic views. They all essentially DO assume that the life a person is born into is irrelevant to their future chances in life, and that history is irrelevant. I don’t believe that, but I am pretty sure that Brash (and his followers) do. From that point of view, the fact that previous generations of Maori were treated intolerably wouldn’t justify government action now to redress the balance. Because from that point of view it is unnecessary.

    It is simplistic of you to infer motives in the way you do. Better to (in my opinion, correctly) argue against Brash’s belief that parental background isn’t that determinative of a persons path in life and that hard work and drive are the main thing. I think that argument is flawed. But I am not going to call him racist for thinking it. I a content to just call him wrong.

    Comment by DT — April 28, 2011 @ 10:24 pm

  47. And on ANZACs / the Queen, and that rather odd line of reasoning that because he doesn’t treat this in the same way as race relations Brash is therefore racist, I think that he would talk about those things IF he thought that they were important. From Brash’s point of view welfare etc impact on the economy and thus GDP, which is what is important to him. The Queen and the ANZACs don’t. He is really that one dimensional.

    Comment by DT — April 28, 2011 @ 10:28 pm

  48. I think that argument is flawed. But I am not going to call him racist for thinking it. I a content to just call him wrong.

    +1.

    The racist tag is overused, and used too often to shout people down. Garth George’s comment in the aforementioned Herald article about the attitudes in the wider electorate was made with an outrageously broad brush; he may as well have called everyone a racist.

    Comment by Adze — April 28, 2011 @ 10:44 pm

  49. Like the people who say that Labour, in giving benefits to the poor aims to promote a class of future voters to vote for them

    This worked really well with John Key. The little battler from a state house and a single parent family, who thanks to a state-funded education, managed to pull himself up by the bootstraps, make money hand over first, then chose to return to his country of birth and fuck over anyone who might want to follow in his own footsteps.

    Comment by Ed Muzik — April 28, 2011 @ 10:52 pm

  50. I’m not sure Brash is racist in the sense that he is antagonistic towards people of other races, it’s just that he doesn’t think it should be a factor at all. If only we would put aside all those differences and focus on increasing our GDP, then there would be no more crying and no more pain – all these things would be gone forever.

    Comment by Philoff — April 28, 2011 @ 11:02 pm

  51. If only we would put aside all those differences and focus on increasing our GDP, then there would be no more crying and no more pain – all these things would be gone forever.

    …lost in the void.

    Comment by flynn_the_cat — April 28, 2011 @ 11:26 pm

  52. There are Maori dedicated seats which I believe anyone on the Maori roll can vote for. Are there any other laws different for Maori? Must be for the call that we must move to one law for all. But what are they?

    Comment by Ianmac — April 28, 2011 @ 11:27 pm

  53. Danyl’s argument is one I subscribe to. I think that in Brash, you have someone who is either totally devoid of human emotion, or just doing a very good impression of someone who is totally devoid of human emotion. He is approaching this issue as he likes to approach all issues – from a distance, emotionally unattached. And he is right. No-one in this country should be privileged, let alone a whole race group. This is a sound theory, one we should aspire to as a country. Brash says we should have it now, but scrapping any ‘race-based privilege.’ He is trying to apply an academic / philosophical argument to a political problem. It fails as soon as it leaves his lips, as it could only ever work, as Danyl says, if we were starting from scratch. It completely and conveniently ignores the historic grievances that have led us to have this debate in the first place.

    I think it is probably similar to his thoughts on economic theory. He obviously believes in the free market, the invisible hand etc etc. So do I. In theory, these ideas should be the best way of distributing wealth, resources and services. But in practice, they are a complete disaster, as NZ’s experiences since the 80’s have shown – because the practical application never matches the theory. As recent examples such as South Canterbury Finance and AMI have shown, even a supposedly free market-friendly government like the Key government doesn’t have the political balls to make such unpopular decisions. So they rescue these failing companies, and this means the market is no longer purely free, and thus deviates from the theory. The market is distorted, yet people like Brash will continue to bang on their drum about how if we were to just reduce tax a bit more, it would all be fine.

    I don’t think I’ve ever agree with anything that Brash has said, quite frankly – but I think I can kind of see where he comes from. He is an intelligent, bookish guy who genuinely seems to believe that he can transfer the skills he has in the theory of financial markets to actual, real life, dole-queues round the corner economies. I’m not a psychologist, but appears to me to have a personality that would fit somewhere on the autism spectrum – maybe Aspergers (I don’t mean to offend or belittle anyone that does, by association.) He seems to both lack empathy, and have an unwavering determination that he is right – and damn the evidence.

    Comment by Ed Muzik — April 28, 2011 @ 11:28 pm

  54. @Ed Muzik: I think that isn’t a bad description of Brash. Like a religious zealot, he has found a doctrine that seems to offer a plausible explanation of the world around him, and he buys into it. People do this all the time (it seems like Danyl does this a lot, judging by the weird reasoning in his post). Of course, the world isn’t that one dimensional (luckily).

    Comment by DT — April 28, 2011 @ 11:57 pm

  55. The problem with the 80s isn’t the free market per se. With modest protections, the free market is the most effective way to allocate resources in am economy. The problem with the 80s process was more about poor implementation which allowed cronyism to rape and pillage the process. Investment banks acting for both buyer and seller And then turning out be the buyer after all.

    Personally I I think Brash should be welcomed back. Ther are now two political leaders -Brash and Harawira – who can be trusted. Trusted in the sense that their rhetoric matches their beliefs. If they win votes it would be condascending to argue they dont deserve them.

    It is lazy to call brash racist. Last time I checked, the definition of racist is someone who believes that a persons race is responsible for differences in character and that one particular rave is superior (or inferior) to another.

    The flawed process

    Comment by Nadis — April 29, 2011 @ 12:09 am

  56. The problem with the 80s isn’t the free market per se. With modest protections, the free market is the most effective way to allocate resources in am economy. The problem with the 80s process was more about poor implementation which allowed cronyism to rape and pillage the process. Investment banks acting for both buyer

    and seller And then turning out be the buyer
    after all.

    Personally I I think Brash should be welcomed back. There are now two political leaders -Brash and Harawira – who can be trusted. Trusted in the sense that their rhetoric matches their
    beliefs. If they win votes it would be condascending to argue they dont deserve them.

    It is lazy to call brash racist. Last time I checked, the definition of racist is someone who believes that a persons race is responsible for differences in character and that one particular
    race is superior (or inferior) to another.

    Do you really believe Don Brash thinks Maori are inferior to pakeha? Now you can argue lot of other unflattering things about brash but they are differences of opinion as opposed to the black and white statement “he is a racist.”

    The flawed process

    Comment by Nadis — April 29, 2011 @ 12:18 am

  57. Brash’s point is that the forgotten third party to the Treaty…that is everyone else who isn’t Maori or the Crown, have had a guts full of this bullshit and especially having to pay to sooth the Maori part for the crimes of the Crown part.

    Thats who Brash is speaking for and it is a vast and angry audience.

    Comment by James — April 29, 2011 @ 12:29 am

  58. James: Harden up mate, and stop being so bloody sensitive.

    Comment by The PC Avenger — April 29, 2011 @ 12:36 am

  59. “Better to (in my opinion, correctly) argue against Brash’s belief that parental background isn’t that determinative of a persons path in life and that hard work and drive are the main thing. I think that argument is flawed.”

    and yet nearly all of the Maori (whose ancestors were so horribly wronged) that move to Australia (or elsewhere overseas) succeed and prosper through hard work and drive despite their parental background.

    Comment by Zarchoff — April 29, 2011 @ 1:04 am

  60. “Are there any other laws different for Maori?”

    Well for starters there are different tax rules for Maori Trusts and Maori Authorities than the equivalent non-Maori counter parts.

    Comment by Zarchoff — April 29, 2011 @ 1:08 am

  61. Lyndon @45

    As I said, you can always find ulterior motives in any good thing, and out of the muck and mumbo jumbo we got the European concept of property rights tagged to Maori concerns. People can understand that and accept that the court room is the place to sort it out. I mightn’t like some of the judgments, but I would trust that process more than deals between politicians.

    JC

    Comment by JC — April 29, 2011 @ 2:20 am

  62. “It is lazy to call brash racist. Last time I checked, the definition of racist is someone who believes that a persons race is responsible for differences in character and that one particular race is superior (or inferior) to another.”

    That is one definition of racism, yes. The other one is more nuanced, and one that white people (or straight people when accused of heterocentric thinking, or men when accused of being sexist) like to deny exists. That sense would be the blissful ignorance of the difficulties that those in non-dominant groups suffer from. If you look at pretty much every negative statistic (prison population, low incomes, education levels), Maori are overrepresented. Saying “If everyone was treated equally it’d all be great, because I was treated equally and I’m fine!” is a privilege that Brash has by virtue of his race. Not having to think about being stopped by the police because you’re driving too nice a car for someone with your skin colour, not being accused of being too dumb to get into law school without affirmative action, not being a 4th generation NZer being asked what country you’re from because you’re not white – these are all examples of white privilege. Our society is structured – due to an actively racist, patriarchal history – to passively support the fact that whiteys are the top dogs. It’s a more subtle form of racism than active bigotry, and not as morally blameworthy, but it is if anything even more damaging.

    Comment by Eddie C — April 29, 2011 @ 2:26 am

  63. Fuck up Pc….the tides a turning….

    Comment by James — April 29, 2011 @ 4:48 am

  64. Eddie. Not sure what your point is. All those examples are actions which I’d be happy to classify as racist. How does the fact that some parts of society acting in a racist manner make don brash a racist?

    Brash is on the record as supporting the settlement process to atone for past grievances. Now you may disagree with brash on the expected outcomes, but again somebody is not racist just because they don’t agree with your opinion.

    I’ll reiterate my point just to be really clear. I think it’s valid to debate that brash has different views to you on the socio economic causes of Maori outcomes and what the solutions are. That doesn’t make him racist.

    As an aside the solution to many problems maori have is for them to move to oz. Plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that the move has a positive impact on their economic status. I recall a 60 minutes episode where Maori in Aus were claiming putting the Tasman between them and much of their extended family was massively helpful.

    Comment by Nadis — April 29, 2011 @ 8:11 am

  65. One last point. Calling brash a racist just doesn’t resonate with most NZers. You’ll drive lots of traditional labour voters to act as well as anlotnof the disaffected who would otherwise gravitate to luigi peters.

    I don’t think you’ll be able to make the racist charge stick with the majority of NZers.

    Comment by Nadis — April 29, 2011 @ 8:27 am

  66. somewhere on the autism spectrum – maybe Aspergers (I don’t mean to offend or belittle anyone that does, by association.) He seems to both lack empathy, and have an unwavering determination that he is right – and damn the evidence.

    I appreciate your intent, but that is a stereotypical view of Asperger’s, I’m afraid. The supposed “lack of empathy” in people with the condition is only superficial, due to a difficultly in reading the emotional cues given by neurotypical people in real time. Often other people’s emotions are overwhelming, leading to a certain standoffishness in face to face contact. I usually treat emotions as things to be rigorously analysed in order to deal with them (“what’s automatic for you is manual for me”, as I often say) – but certainly not ignored.

    As for the “damn the evidence” attitude, well, maybe if the theory is beautiful and intricate enough, but again, a typical autistic characteristic is a fascination with detail and Brash has long shown at best a very superficial, if not disdainful attitude towards detail (and facts). I remember him being interviewed about his silly proposal to abolish parole, being pressured to explain how a replacement system would work in the real world in a rare instance of a journalist actually doing their job, and glibly dismissing them by saying “something would be worked out”. No aspie would ever be so cavalier with detail.

    To be a bit mischievous, he matches pretty closely the profile in Babiak and Hare’s Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work with an admixture of genuine zealotry. >:)

    Comment by Rhinocrates — April 29, 2011 @ 8:46 am

  67. …these are all examples of white privilege

    No, they’re not.
    They’re examples of ignorance (and quite possibly xenophobia?) which, by any objective or subjective standard, are rife throughout pretty much all cultures, creeds, and races. Calling out ‘white people’ for those behaviors is, in and of itself, a racist statement.

    I don’t disagree with the main thrust of your argument, but the logic of how you’ve got there is a little bit wonky.

    Comment by Phil — April 29, 2011 @ 10:19 am

  68. Calling out ‘white people’ for those behaviors is, in and of itself, a racist statement.

    It’s so hard, being white.

    Comment by Frances — April 29, 2011 @ 10:28 am

  69. if Brash is racist what does that make Helen “FSA” Clark?

    Comment by NeilM — April 29, 2011 @ 10:34 am

  70. and yet nearly all of the Maori (whose ancestors were so horribly wronged) that move to Australia (or elsewhere overseas) succeed and prosper through hard work and drive despite their parental background.

    I think there are two main factors at work with this:

    1) Migrants of pretty much any background tend to be amongst the most hard working, well organised, initiative-taking members of the group they’re from. Moving countries is a difficult and scary process, especially if you’re from a disadvantaged background, so those who do it are pretty much by definition the kind of people who have the skills and character to succeed in most societies.

    2) In Australia Maori are not ‘bottom of the heap’ and don’t have to deal with being constantly associated with criminality, poverty etc. I would assume the lessening of negative stereotypes makes it easier to get jobs, do well in school and so forth.

    Comment by helenalex — April 29, 2011 @ 10:35 am

  71. You state that Maori have been the most disadvantaged in our society for decades, yet fail to understand that it is their choice in a lot of cases, that despite all the cash and land and assets that have been thrown their way, they have decided to do little or nothing to improve their lifestyles.

    It’s blatantly unfair having Maori seats. The original concept of having them in the first place is bankrupt. Maori have more opportunity than everyone else, because of scholarships and preferential healthcare, etc, so there is no need for the seats.

    Seriously. The amount of Maori-owned pubs and taverns that are springing up these days, the billions of dollars of assets owned by the different tribes, the scholarships and the healthcare and even now a Maori prison that provides more adequate facilities than normal prisons, and which ‘pakehas will be entitled to, at some stage’, does this not all point to preferential treatment of a race that is decidedly lax and devil-may-care?

    Comment by Betty — April 29, 2011 @ 11:49 am

  72. @helenalex: the lack of prejudice is a huge factor. Over here Maori generally have a positive racial prejudice (which is justified in a way, in an amusing turn of events the ethnic group with the loweest unemployment and highest average income is kiwis). The All Blacks make much more of an impression than any of the internal kiwi politics. It doesn’t hurt that the progressive side look at Maori and go “oooh, Treaty, so shiny”.

    Comment by Moz — April 29, 2011 @ 11:58 am

  73. Danyl, just to educate what racism is and isn’t…
    Don Brash – probably not racist, even if you disagree with his policies on welfare, electoral law, and positive discrimination.
    Betty (comment # 71) – probably racist, see references to Maori as a “decidedly lax and devil-may-care” race.

    Comment by DT — April 29, 2011 @ 12:01 pm

  74. I don’t know if Brash is a racist as I can’t read his mind, but it seems he is quite happy to use racist arguments – even if very subtle dog-whistle stuff – to achieve power. Want to call that racist? Or just opportunist?
    The big problem as I see it is that while we need to understand the past, endlessly rehashing it has very little resonance with the average Kiwi (23% of whom were born overseas BTW), it’s ancient history to most of them. What’s needed is a forward looking plan to actually create the equal society that Brash pretends exists now. I think the Labour Party with all its faults offers the best chance of actually moving toward that society. As Europe post-credit crunch shows, racism grows with inequality.

    Comment by deemac — April 29, 2011 @ 12:04 pm

  75. Don Brash can’t be racist. His ex-wife is Singapore!

    Comment by Questioneer — April 29, 2011 @ 12:09 pm

  76. the term “institutional racism” was coined to try and capture a form of racism that is different to what we all know as racism eg white supremacists. But eventually IR got over- and mis-used and lost its currency.

    Comment by NeilM — April 29, 2011 @ 12:13 pm

  77. Phil:

    Short answer, what Frances said.

    Longer answer – fine, they’re examples of dominant group privilege. In China, this would be Han Chinese. In some mythical society that might someday exist, it might be disabled black lesbians. In New Zealand, it’s white men. There. As NeilM said, institutional racism is a very real thing, but (a) it’s been misused and lost currency and (b) dominant groups really really like to pretend it doesn’t exists.

    Comment by Eddie C — April 29, 2011 @ 12:25 pm

  78. It’s not about racism, it’s about appropriateness. Currently, it is not appropriate to have Maori seats in light of all the opportunities Maori are given in regards to preferential healthcare, Maori business grants, preferential education in race-based scholarships, etc.

    Race-based scholarships are racist, and unnecessary.

    We do not need Maori seats.

    Comment by Betty — April 29, 2011 @ 12:30 pm

  79. I said “Name one other country where treating all ethnic / racial groups equally is regarded as racist and treaing one ethic /racial group differently is regarded as non racist?”
    Danyl replied “I guess the US, and their civil rights/affirmative action policies are the best examples of this. They had a hundred years of slavery, then a hundred years of Jim Crow, and five seconds of affirmative action before white politicians demanded to know why blacks were now so incredibly privileged, when everybody should be EQUAL before the law.”
    OK, so after a couple of hundred years of racism, including its most extreme form in slavery and a short period of reversed polarity with “affirmative action” the US now treats all citizens equally but it is still racist because it can never makeup for the past and is therefore eternally damned.
    Good. I am glad we got that settled. So much for the US, for Don Brash and for NZ for that matter.
    Why then would anyone bother to strive for an equal society?

    Comment by Bob — April 29, 2011 @ 1:38 pm

  80. Phil – I don’t believe Ed Musik was “calling out white people”, or blaming them for being privileged, I think he was just pointing out a lot of the ways that non-white people’s lives are more difficult than white people’s. I believe that it is institutional racism like this, which is brought about by a whole of different historical and social factors, that make differential treatment of people from different groups sometimes necessary – and that goes not only for ethnic minorities, but as someone already mentioned for non-heterosexuals, women, certain religious minorities, etc….

    Betty – I refuse to believe you are a real person, you must be someone’s idea of a joke. Right?

    Comment by Orphan Piglet — April 29, 2011 @ 2:01 pm

  81. “You state that Maori have been the most disadvantaged in our society for decades, yet fail to understand that it is their choice in a lot of cases, that despite all the cash and land and assets that have been thrown their way, they have decided to do little or nothing to improve their lifestyles.”

    Why do people not take this argument to its logical conclusion? You’re basically saying Maori are inferior. Despite all we do to try and help them, they “choose” to be on the bottom of the heap. They simply must be genetically inferior to white people.

    Is there some other meaning you’re going for with your ridiculous statements?

    Comment by James Wendelborn — April 29, 2011 @ 2:42 pm

  82. “When the seats were set up the Treaty was cited by McLean as a justification.”

    True, but this does not mean that removing the seats is a breach of the Treaty. Many policies have cited the Treaty as justification but that doesn’t mean removing or ending them is a breach of the Treaty. For instance, both National and the Maori Party stated that bringing the Maori Party into government was a way of giving effect to the Treaty of Waitangi’s principles. If we follow the same logic that you have used for the Maori seats, then any party that refused to include the Maori Party in a governing coalition would be racist.

    Comment by Hugh — April 29, 2011 @ 3:06 pm

  83. . . . this does not mean that removing the seats is a breach of the Treaty

    Sure. But Brash is saying we need to get rid of the Maori seats – and that’s his only contribution to the debate about our government. If he said, say, ‘We need to become a democracy, establish an upper house and get rid of the Maori seats.’ (or whatever), we could say: ‘Hey, he’s a reformer!’ But he’s not. He’s specifically focused on Maori seats, Maori based funding and Maori privisions in law.

    None of these are very timely. We don’t NEED to solve these problems right now. The performance of kariaka, which Brash rails against – is not holding back the economy or slowing the rebuilding of Christchurch. So why are they such a big deal to Brash?

    Comment by danylmc — April 29, 2011 @ 3:24 pm

  84. Great post Danyl, my thoughts exactly.

    Betty @78 said It’s not about racism, it’s about appropriateness. Currently, it is not appropriate to have Maori seats in light of all the opportunities Maori are given in regards to preferential healthcare, Maori business grants, preferential education in race-based scholarships, etc.

    If these have removed the historical disadvantaged face the vast majority of Maori, how come we are still statistically over-represented in all major indicators of negative problems (health, mental health, education, income, crime). I have long said that the Maori seats will have done their job once Maori are achieving on a par with Pakeha. Until that time, they need to stay.

    OTOH, I would swap them for an veto-capable upper house drawn up along the partnership principles of Te Tirit (i.e. 50% iwi, 50% tauiwi).

    Comment by Mikaere Curtis — April 29, 2011 @ 4:08 pm

  85. So why are they such a big deal to Brash?

    Cos the things he wants to do are really really unpopular. And there are racists, who have votes.

    Brash cares about their votes, and pandering to their racism is worth it.

    He may not be a racist ( by some definitions), but he doesn’t mind racists thinking he shares their priorities.

    Which is a pretty fine hair to be splitting, but people try.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — April 29, 2011 @ 4:24 pm

  86. Danyl, I kind of follow what you’re saying, kind of don’t. I think you can identify the Maori seats as the main problem with our electoral structure without being racist – the case for an Upper House is not exactly obvious (although it does weird me out how many left-wing bloggers are so keen on it, even if they rarely overtly push it). But you are right that Brash tends to bring it up as a package of “things we can do to balance things between maori and non-maori”.

    Comment by Hugh — April 29, 2011 @ 5:20 pm

  87. @Betty 71: “It’s blatantly unfair having Maori seats.”

    Why is it unfair? Maori electorates are roughly the same size as general electorates. A Maori vote counts just the same as a general vote.

    Comment by Repton — April 29, 2011 @ 11:18 pm

  88. I think he’s also racist because there is evidence that Maori (like most other ethnic minorities in NZ) are discriminated against today in terms of how easy it is for them to get a job, rent a house, get promoted in their job, get attention from their teacher, or receive quality care from a doctor. So by saying that we should treat everybody equally you’re not just ignoring history, you’re also ignoring day to day reality. Affirmative action is needed to balance out the pervasive and (often unintentional) racism that disadvantages Maori in NZ today.

    Comment by LucyJH — April 30, 2011 @ 7:29 pm

  89. Hone has 5 rights,

    John has 9,

    The government gives Hone 3 more rights,

    Who has been given MORE rights? Who has more rights.

    Comment by KINTO — May 1, 2011 @ 6:27 pm

  90. Brash’s appeal for equality is based on the idea that we have no history. Nothing happened before now: we just have a bunch of laws that privilege Maori over others, for no apparent reason and so it’s only fair and just that we get rid of them.

    This “history” is something that I had nothing to do with and gained nothing more from it than most other NZers. I am not responsible for injustices (real or imagined) other people have been involved in and it is clearly an injustice that money be taken from me (that’s the bottom line) and given to those who were supposedly wronged.
    To be fair and practical one must look at what the situation is currently and any institutionalized racisism should be removed. This would involve doing a lot of what Mr. Brash advocates.
    Maori folk are doing fine and will do a lot better if Mr. Brash has his way. We won’t be wasting the taxpayer money on garbage and that will benefit all NZers.
    Get past your backward and racist ideology danyl and you will be a more enlightened and progressive person.

    Comment by jon — May 2, 2011 @ 4:43 pm

  91. To be fair and practical one must look at what the situation is currently and any institutionalized racisism should be removed. This would involve doing a lot of what Mr. Brash advocates.

    Two comments above yours, LucyJH does a fine job of looking at what the current situation is, and the only thing you say to dispute it is “Maori folk are doing fine” – really? Then what’s with all the statistics that say they’re not?

    Comment by Simon Poole — May 2, 2011 @ 5:06 pm

  92. The Maori seats were created because when elections were first held in NZ only men holding a certain amount of property were allowed to vote, Maori land tended to be held communally, it was in this context that the seats were created. The land ownership requirement is long gone and so should the racist seats be gone. The other issue with racist seats is that a system of race classification must be devised. At one time if you were 50/50 you could choose which way to go. I recommend and device held against the skin to check the colour.

    Comment by Warwick — May 2, 2011 @ 6:01 pm

  93. The point is not that Maori have suffered injustices…which they certainly have,but what,if any, obligation do we,the forgotten third party to the Treaty have to “make things right” considering we had no part in it as we weren’t there? Its the same scam BS that reparations for slavery in the US has run on…that whites etc have some debt owing to the descendent’s of the slaves…and that’s bullshit.No person is responsible for the actions,real or not (in most cases of current US or NZ citizens)of their ancestors.

    The only way Maori will ever rise and prosper is if they 1)End their collectivist outlook on life and embrace individualism. 2)The state and the rest of us stop referring to or acknowledging a non existent entity called “Maori” and don’t pander to it with money and pity thereby further entrenching the problem,collectivism.Treat Maori people as individual people before any group identity BS and watch the startlingly positive results for everyone in years to come

    Brash is speaking for those of us who are sick of being branded with an un-earned guilt we have no reason to bear and more importantly the never ending bill to “cleanse” it.If that’s racist then so be it…more of it and ASAP.

    Comment by James — May 4, 2011 @ 12:17 am

  94. No person is responsible for the actions,real or not(in most cases of current US or NZ citizens)of their ancestors.

    But the State is, genius.

    Treat Maori people as individual people before any group identity BS

    And what if individual Maori want to be treated in a “collectivist”, group way? Do you just enforce your views on them, and basically demand that they (as individuals), fall in line with what your cultural background dictates is the “normal” identity conceptualization?

    Comment by The PC Avenger — May 4, 2011 @ 12:38 am

  95. But I,nor anyone else is the State….and we have no responsibility for actions carried out in its history….genius.

    If Maori want to live and act collectively that’s fine…its called a free market but the rest of us have no obligation to fund or treat them differently in any way.Objective realitys law of cause and effect will disperse rewards and penalties as the consequences for our actions…..if Maori don’t like the penalties they have been receiving maybe they need to reassess their actions to date….mmmm? Its not white NZ that’s giving Maori a hard time…its reality.

    Comment by James — May 4, 2011 @ 12:49 am

  96. If you want to salve your “guilt” by prostrating yourself in cringing submission to the great brown Maori abstraction PC then you go right ahead…the rest of us have lives to get on with.

    Comment by James — May 4, 2011 @ 12:52 am

  97. But I,nor anyone else is the State….and we have no responsibility for actions carried out in its history….genius.

    So if the State breaches or fails to uphold or enforced contracts with individuals and groups, it is permissible to absolve anyone or anything of responsibility? What a curiously optimistic position for you to take, and one that would hand the government of the day a considerable amount of power.

    It’s not terribly clear what point you’re trying to make in the rest of your comment. That Maori are inherently inferior? I’m unsure if you actually think that, or just have difficulty expressing your ideas in a way that isn’t incredibly racist.

    Comment by The PC Avenger — May 4, 2011 @ 1:05 am

  98. The Government already has a considerable amount of power…the power to tax and destroy lives.

    My point is that Maori are getting what they deserve by virtue of their own actions/lack of them.Its objective reality they have the beef with and it doesn’t loose.If Maori want to chain themselves to a collective abstraction and sink or swim with it then that’s their lookout…why are the rest of us responsible for their poor choices? Go look at how Maori people fare in Aussie away from the abstract-Maori anchor that pulls them down in NZ..they acknowledge it themselves.They are far better off without the bullshit of perpetual grievance and dependency they have to wallow in here.I’ve worked for Maori with the Aussie attitude and they are great people in themselves,race being redundant….contrast that with the sick/sad loser mentality that the collectivists wallow it like drug addicts.

    Cry racist all you like…its YOU whois the problem for Maori prosperity and survival….not I.

    Comment by James — May 4, 2011 @ 1:48 am

  99. James, you misunderstand. Readdressing the various (and reasonably recent) grievances that come under the Treaty of Waitangi is the obligation of the State (in this case, the Crown). These grievances are held by groups who have been directly affected by the Crown, agents of the Crown, or by individual parties, who have violated said treaty.

    This is not a difficult concept to understand. Crown makes treaty with Maori tribes. Crown breaks or allows treaty to be broken, and refuses to accept it until the late 80’s. Crown recognizes that Maori tribes who signed the treaty have a legitimate case and attempt to make amends for what amounts to a violation of group property rights.

    So in order for Maori to be considered equal to you, they must cease identifying as Maori or holding attitudes you consider typical of Maori?

    Comment by The PC Avenger — May 4, 2011 @ 2:07 am

  100. Point one…Crowns problem…not mine.

    I never said anything about equality for Maori with me…..I am making the point that the chosen Maori system of social arrangement,collectivism, is doing them no good in regards to reality and until they change they can expect no improvement in their lives and prospects…..its not me making that stark choice for the….its reality.Collectivism hasn’t worked in its Socialist,Communist and Fascist forms….tribalism is no different.

    Comment by James — May 4, 2011 @ 2:28 am

  101. PC Avenger: you’re arguing with an objectivist, ie someone on a par with Mormons or Scientologists. There is no issue in the entire universe his ideology doesn’t resolve simply and immediately. In this case, given that James recognises only himself, his money, and any contracts he happens to have signed, the concept that the Crown might be a symbolic collective entity that actually involves him in some way is just ridiculous. No dispute between Maori and the state dare touch his cash, because he never signed whatever contract is at issue. It’s all very straightforward – completely fucking batshit crazy, but very straightforward.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — May 4, 2011 @ 8:45 am

  102. Oh how so Milty? Do you just offer your arse up to anyone claiming you have an un-chosen obligation that you never signed up to? I,nor anyone else alive today were around at the time of the Treaty’s signing so am not beholding to any agreements made.To suggest that I am is to suggest I’m a means to someone else’s end….a slave.Sorry but fuck that…and you if you think I’ll submit to that.

    Comment by James — May 4, 2011 @ 9:03 am

  103. The utter depths of ahistoricality and wrongheadedness in this comment thread — within a pretty smart audience and emerging from an intelligent, calmly-reasoned and clear proposition — is exactly why racists like Brash get traction.

    We simply don’t know our history. Pākehā don’t know their history; we think we don’t really have any. Māori — for the most part due to suppression by Pākehā extension to Māori of their fear and loathing of their own history — to a very large extent don’t know theirs either. Most importantly of all, almost none of us really know our shared history.

    Because we don’t, and because this general ahistoricality is something we Pākehā, like white Australians, largely wear as a badge of honour, any racist demagogue with a mix of quick fix populism and manifest destiny exceptionalism can pass a historical sniff test well enough to appeal.

    L

    Comment by Lew — May 4, 2011 @ 9:14 am

  104. Lew….come back when you get your head out of your backside and are over your silly little bout of big wordiness…..we ain’t impressed with that crap.

    Comment by James — May 4, 2011 @ 9:22 am

  105. Perhaps you could expand on your fascinating use of “we” James?

    Comment by Sanctuary — May 4, 2011 @ 9:25 am

  106. lulz

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — May 4, 2011 @ 9:26 am

  107. James, is ‘commenters understand nothing today’ made of small enough words for you?

    L

    Comment by Lew — May 4, 2011 @ 9:29 am

  108. Some interesting points here.
    I think that Don Brash’s argument is not racist in itself. Many seem to be arguing that, because they perceive DB to be racist, therefore he and his position is racist, which is one of those circular non evolving arguments. What I find interesting is the acknowledgement that the contra position is racists, but it is a necessary racism. It is an argument I find troubling and fundamentally opposed to many of the ideals upheld by those on all sides of the political spectrum.
    How can we fight for a free, fair and egalitarian society if on one hand we are happy to make provisos on the basis of race? And if we are happy to do that by what moral mandate can we argue against one race arguing for more rights as opposed to another? Either racism is wrong or it is not – make up our minds please.
    It also seems to me that there are several separate elements that get mixed up and need to be isolated from each other.
    The Maori seats are a racist solution to a problem that no longer exists. Their future should be looked at in a conversation about sovereignty and constitutional reforms that is completely separate to any discussion on redress for treaty claims or alleviating social/economic disadvantage.
    I have no problem with the idea of redress for broken treaties and contracts {I support treaty settlements}, but at some point there has to be a discussion on when is there an end date. After all is the English government of today responsible for atrocities against the people of France committed during the Napoleonic wars? This is again I think separate from policies needed to address social/economic disadvantages.
    I think that all assistance should be based solely on need and race should not be a factor. Yet there is a strong argument that as Maori are over-represented in that area there should be special targeted assistance. I am yet to come to a position on this as I find both sides equally persuasive.

    Comment by Socrates — May 4, 2011 @ 9:39 am

  109. In case any right-wingers are reading this and imagining James isn’t just a truculent racist, here’s a possibly more comprehensible analogy: being a citizen of NZ makes you a shareholder in the company. The fact that you weren’t a shareholder back when the company made decision X doesn’t alter the fact that as a shareholder, you own that decision. Means exist for you to attempt to overturn it, if you can persuade enough fellow shareholders – but “I wasn’t consulted” isn’t particularly persuasive.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — May 4, 2011 @ 9:47 am

  110. What Milt said.

    Plus, I’m amazed at the contempt with which James holds contract law. I thought that the ability to enforce contracts (freely entered into) was the basis for civilised society? What exactly is wrong with Maori seeking compensation for a broken contract? Shit, we’re barely even attempting some form of Kaldor-Hicks efficiency here, so I really don’t see what the problem is.

    Comment by Simon Poole — May 4, 2011 @ 10:44 am

  111. What contract did I sign up to Simon? That’s the point….I,nor you are obliged to fulfil a contract we never were party to and that came in to being long before we were born.The issue is between the Crown and Maori…not Maori and individual New Zealanders.Maori had no property rights before the European came..everything was gained and held with force.Auckland was a no man’s land as tribes battled each other with none being able to maintain a claim….European law changed that.And yes Maori got ripped off and treated terribly…but not by me.And Maori did plenty of frauding of their own too lets not forget….

    The forgotten third party to the Treaty has had enough of paying for the party…and Brash is the voice of that party.I have no issue with the Crown making good to Maori out of its holdings….which are vast and costing me and every other taxpayer a mint to maintain.Gift it to the Maori,reduce our taxes….I’m all good with that.I those Maori want to then charge me for access to enjoy their lands etc I’m happy to pay if the price suits me…as I am with any private service in the market.

    Comment by James — May 4, 2011 @ 10:14 pm

  112. Look at it this way James. Say your parents die and leave you some money in their will. And then their former business partner appears and is able to prove in court that the money your parents left you was stolen from them. Would you feel that you have no obligation to repay them, as you’re just an innocent third party?

    Comment by danylmc — May 4, 2011 @ 10:21 pm

  113. Again, see what Psycho Milt said just before myself.

    How about we put it this way: My son is not quite two. When he is an adult, the Crown will still be repaying money borrowed before he was born. He didn’t sign that contract, so why should his tax be used to repay a loan that he won’t see any benefit from?*

    *Yes, he will get to use infrastructure purchased with the money, and enjoy a better quality of healthcare and education if these things are given increased funding. But you have land to build a house on, our farmers have land to farm on etc… these things were not necessarily purchased fairly by the Crown (the only authorised purchaser, according to the Treaty), and so they are making reparations now. This is what the Waitangi Tribunal is for. Therefore, I honestly can’t see what your problem is.

    Comment by Simon Poole — May 4, 2011 @ 10:30 pm

  114. James,I to have no idea what Kaldor-Hicks efficiency is…but I could look it up…. but you my friend are a flatulent, arrogant, little prick. You and your libertarian mates (sorry but you can smell it a mile off) are a classic example of the kind of Ayn Rand reading diseased thought spreading human arse fungi that really just make my gut involuntary spasm in a phenomenon other wise known as “vomiting”.. your pathetic reductionist arguments and cute aphorisms ( look it up numb nuts ) have absolutely no bearing or relevance to the real world. That was a big old bag of Ad-hominem, once again look it up pizzle wad. But I feel justified because you are such an incredibly pathetic example of humanity. Fuckwit reductionists like you who like to reduce the vast complexity of life, government, history, philosophy, to convenient little bite size pieces, regurgitated slogans, and other little pellets your tiny minds can process, and consider yourselves more intelligent than everyone else, are really ultimately, using a convenient thought system to justify your selfishness, lack of understanding, psychopathic lack of empathy, greed, and general shit eating microbe like grasp of reality. Fuckwits like you have absolutely no right having representation in parliament at all. If your spineless little shit (ex) leader, Rodney hide, hadn’t won one a seat in one shit hole 4 wheel drive shopping trolley suburb of Auckland, you wouldn’t. Act didn’t even make the 5 percent thresh hold. Its due to a no doubt eventually to be rectified anomaly of the political system that anyone has to even give a shit what brash thinks about anything at all again. by the way, its libertarian Scientology-like moron thieves like you that fucked the world economy. Do your research. Look up “Ayn Rand and Allen Greenspan” Then look up his mates. Then do some research on the credit crunch. Then fuck off and die some where you petulant little shit. THEN, have some ideological integrity and respect contract law. THEN think about the post above that compares a country to a company. The directors may change, the contractual obligations don’t. THEN if you can wrap your pathetic little excuse for a small globule of sputem brain around the fact that if contractual obligations are broken (in this case repeatedly) there must be reparation. Then extend that, and I know that this will be impossible for you, to the idea that if a people, or a GROUP aka “collective” of people, are disenfranchised over time, generations, this leads to entrenched poverty, and the concurrent social and educational disadvantages. How do you remedy this !? good question, good thing its not up to dipshits like you. After you’ve done that please crawl under a rock somewhere and die again, you snivelling little piece of shit. THEN think about the truth that if a people want to think of them selves as a collective that’s fine, NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS, you PATRONISING, ARROGANT, little FUCKSTAIN. THEN consider that it is actually believed to be a modern endemic LACK of connection to others which is at the root of the rise in depression and crime, (including corporate fraud.) … then I dunno, make some friends, get out of your little box of a life and think about your cousins, uncles, sisters, nephews, aunties… or don’t. Just be a self obsessed, psychopathic, greedy little shit, and support a belief system that is fucking the whole world. – end of rant -

    Comment by QDig — May 4, 2011 @ 10:46 pm

  115. Dim…your example is not in the same context.The money being taken from taxpayers is from their earnings NOW…not inherited wealth.Its not stolen Maori wealth that’s being taken back…its new wealth created today that’s being taken to pay someone else’s debt.If its land that’s at issue and Maori can make a case for it being theirs then give them it back or an amount of Crown land of equal value.But was that land really stolen…or sold by a dodgy Maori for a quick buck? That’s why collective ownership fails…everyone owns it therefore no-one really does.The Maori concept of “ownership” ran into the European one….that’s the crux of many of these land claim issues.

    Simon.The problem is I’m getting poorer and less equal under the law the longer this scam goes on.Add to that the fact that Maori in general seem not be getting any further ahead or independent….indeed they seem to be getting poorer and worse off .Lawyers are getting fatter as are the brown table troughers…but no one else it seems.How many “full and final ” settlements is it going to take to end the theft?

    And what happens when the third party demands ITS property back that was stolen to pay debts that are not its own?

    Comment by James — May 4, 2011 @ 10:59 pm

  116. So what, James? I’ll bypass your ignorance of Maori law and inter-tribal politics following the Musket Wars and move on to your later point: you support settling historical Treaty claims, but only if the Crown, and not the taxpayer, pays (however that’s meant to work – perhaps by selling off conservation land). And you don’t believe that claims are genuine, you don’t think settlements actually benefit Maori (although they disadvantage you), or that they’re final. So what is it about settlements that you support?

    Comment by Trouble — May 4, 2011 @ 11:16 pm

  117. James: you might want to reflect on the fact that almost all wealth in New Zealand is created on or leveraged off land once owned by Maori. You directly benefit from living and working on such land.

    There is a very real reason that specific land is not returned: If Ngati Whatua were to, for example, demand that the land in the Auckland isthmus be returned to them, would you not agree that it would be more efficient to make a cash payment than to evict the current population?

    Certainly, land transfers are appropriate in some areas, especially when the land in question is still held by the Crown, but to argue that you can take a hundred thousand acres in central Auckland from a tribe and give them a similar sized block on the Hauraki Plains and that they should be happy is ridiculous. In such cases, the only acceptable reparation to both parties will involve a cash payment.

    Comment by Simon Poole — May 4, 2011 @ 11:57 pm

  118. Simon….Maori “owned” no land in the sense you are trying to use to justify your point.Property rights were a European concept introduced here by them.Maori were scattered tribes that only had what they had at any time by force….their “right” vanished when challenged by superior force.Leaving that aside we still have the fact that a lot of Maori land was sold quite openly to settlers…now was the seller really within is rights to sell it…? Maori concepts of land ownership cause the problem….all own it as no one owns it and can make the decision to sell it….That’s not my problem in this day and age.Maori are lucky to get what they get now…its far more than they deserve quite frankly.

    The Crown is the entity responsible for settling these matters with ITS money…not the third party who isn’t.

    Comment by James — May 5, 2011 @ 1:48 am

  119. Maori “owned” no land in the sense you are trying to use to justify your point.Property rights were a European concept introduced here by them.Maori were scattered tribes that only had what they had at any time by force….their “right” vanished when challenged by superior force.

    Goodness – how moral. So if I were to kill your family and take everything they owned, and then explained that my version of property rights was more advanced than yours so you had no form of redress – that’d be completely okay with you, because your ‘rights’ vanished when confronted with my superior force?

    Comment by danylmc — May 5, 2011 @ 5:53 am

  120. Danyl….I was meaning the superior force used by OTHER Maori tribes….you are aware they were killing and eating each other long before Europeans got here? Indeed they probably have us to thank for them surviving into the modern age.If we hadn’t come would they be better off….? Considering what the English COULD have down with their full military force a case can be made that Maori got off lightly compared to many other peoples in history.Doesn’t make everything sweetness and light but out of context revisionism isn’t flawless either…

    Comment by James — May 5, 2011 @ 6:05 am

  121. Goodness – how moral. So if I were to kill your family and take everything they owned, and then explained that my version of property rights was more advanced than yours so you had no form of redress – that’d be completely okay with you, because your ‘rights’ vanished when confronted with my superior force?

    Funnily enough Daynal that’s pretty close to the socialists case for statism and the suppression of individual rights in the name of the “common good”….nice to see you are waking up. ;-)

    Comment by James — May 5, 2011 @ 6:07 am

  122. Oh Daynl…did you delete Qdigs amusing little tanty rant?….I was looking forward to a good laugh while destroying him.That’s one dude with a shit load of sand in his vigina. lol
    ;-)

    Comment by James — May 5, 2011 @ 6:11 am

  123. Oh no…I see its there…I just got the notification now.The poor dear sounds really upset….looks like a fine product of our State edukaton sistim eh? lol.

    Comment by James — May 5, 2011 @ 6:15 am

  124. Okay James, your job for the day is to read the first chapter of Jospeh Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness’.

    Comment by danylmc — May 5, 2011 @ 6:24 am

  125. He’s not allowed to do that Danyl; Joseph Conrad isn’t Ayn Rand and is thus not on the approved reading list.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — May 5, 2011 @ 8:05 am

  126. Leaving that aside we still have the fact that a lot of Maori land was sold quite openly to settlers…now was the seller really within is rights to sell it…?

    No. From the New Zealand History Online website: (nzhistory.net.nz)

    Maori gave the Crown an exclusive right to buy lands they wished to sell, and, in return, they were guaranteed full rights of ownership of their lands, forests, fisheries and other possessions;

    Only the Crown had the right to buy land from Maori, not individual settlers. In addition, Maori were assured that they had property rights, in the modern sense, over all of their current lands/fisheries etc. This is Article Two of the Treaty.

    Settlers also knew that they could only purchase land through the Crown. Any that wasn’t purchased through the Crown post-Treaty was acquired illegally. The same goes for land that was confiscated by the Crown – they had guaranteed Maori ownership, and had an obligation to pay them for any land that was transferred.

    Again, I really don’t see what your problem with the Tribunal process is. The Crown is merely ensuring that it has kept the contract it made with the Maori tribes, which we have benefited from.

    Comment by Simon Poole — May 5, 2011 @ 10:20 am

  127. I’m sure most of you are just having a laugh, but those taking this debate seriously should note you’re arguing with a guy who said that it’s stupid to claim the earth is warming, and backed this up by linking to a temperature graph that trended upwards.

    Comment by bradluen — May 5, 2011 @ 10:43 am

  128. bradluen: Yeah, I know. And he seems to be the same sort of person to argue that tax is theft, so I’m really not sure why I bother. I probably just enjoy the sound of my own virtual voice.

    Comment by Simon Poole — May 5, 2011 @ 10:48 am

  129. James- you arrogant, moronic, self satisfied little douche bag. You have the intelligence of a fucking gnat. You are no less an idealogue than than absolutist marxist/stalinist/maoists, and like them your absolutist ideology is irrelevant and has demonstrably FAILED. Witness americas financial demise and bail out by the tax payer. Witness architect of said economy Alan Greeenpans obseesion with same Ayn rand Cult. However idealogical cultists like yourself, similar to Christian fundamentalists who deny the reality of scientific evidence of evolution and that the world wasn’t created in 6 days 5000 years ago (or whatever crap they believe). Luckily just because your an arrogant little shit, thinly veiled racist and want to conveniently forget history, doesn’t mean that anyone else is. Your wako ideas hold no currency, you and your ilk will be ignored and become a footnote in the history you seek to pretend doesn’t exist. I can breath easy. Your a pathetic little fuck, and I can only hope you grow out of this shit like most people after 1st year. Grow some nuts and think for yourself rather than peddling other peoples ideology, you fukn loser. Said ideaology is a complete FAIL and demonstrably dead in the water thanks to real world example. accept it fuckwit. THATS REALITY.

    Comment by QDig — May 5, 2011 @ 12:11 pm

  130. However cultists like your self …….. like christians….. will refuse to acknowledge they are full of shit, despite all evidence to the contrary. Anyway… who cares… nobody gives a shit what you and your mates think.

    Comment by QDig — May 5, 2011 @ 12:13 pm

  131. Ah well I wasn’t trying to be reasonable…. he certainly wasn’t … honestly this little meme is spreading itself all over the world, like a religion, it converts people by employing some nice sounding sentiment..I have sovereignty over myself, I am a free man, then extends that to property rights and not having to pay tax, like christianity assuaging people of their guilt, in this case for not wanting to contribute to society via tax in order that infrastructure, health, education and support for those in need can be maintained. In effect giving them an excuse to be selfish little shit bags, and often employed to justify things like racism, or not making some attempt to right the injustices (breaking of contractual obligations, and the damage thus incurred by the other party) of the past. After sucking people in, relieving them of their guilt, and justifying their baser instincts, it then turns them into converters who go round preaching the shit, acting like they have all the answers… When in fact their theories don’t stand up to any kind of decent analysis, and when applied in the real world, which they have been in the financial sector, fail miserably and have to be bailed out by the democratic, tax paying collective. (social democracy). In fact, these greedy pricks run round betting on risky, spurious, damn near imaginary “financial instuments”, and we have to pick up the tab when it all turns to shit. Libertarianism, much like fascist absolute communism, is an experiment that has been tried and failed, miserably. While a rant like the above breaks all the rules of fair play, and would never be allowed in a debating chamber, I believe it quite effectively chops the heads of those who tout this viralent bullshit, in a way I consider humorous, but then, I have a pretty whacked sense of humour. However if you cut out the cuss words and insults, I think the reasoning is more or less sound….

    Comment by QDig — May 5, 2011 @ 12:28 pm

  132. As for sand in my vagina… Actually are you homophobic as well as racist? because if we were face to face and you were carrying on like the brainless pompous, deluded, smart mouthed little prick you are, I would quite happily tear you a new arse hole. Metaphorically speaking, intellectually, I just did. But of course you’ll deny it, you can’t deal with reality, and much like born again Christians, any one who challenges your bullshit is a satanist, or in your case, communist, which I’m not… (dork).

    Comment by QDig — May 5, 2011 @ 12:39 pm

  133. QDig, resoting to personal attacks is a sad admission that you lack the logical arguments to attack an alternative viewpoint (or the intellectual honesty to admit that your opponent might be right).

    It also diminishes yourself — any subsequent postings by you will be less likely to be read, until you turn into Muzak or airline flight safety announcements (except Air NZ). If you’re lucky, a quality blog owner will figuratively chop you off.

    Now, we return you to the continuing story of James v Those Who Don’t Understand Property Rights

    Comment by DavidW — May 5, 2011 @ 12:53 pm

  134. DavidW…. no lets return to deluded idealogues who refuse to accept they’ve had there intellectual arses handed to them on a platter and can’t accept it… James has been quite free with his insults if you had been paying attention… previous to my joining the debate. your right though… the colourful language, although enjoyable, may detract from the soundness of my reason… no doubt you will have automatically ignored this because it doesn’t fit your ideals… (numb nuts)

    Comment by QDig — May 5, 2011 @ 1:00 pm

  135. I thought it was a pretty impressive example of sustained stream of consciousness invective, if that’s any consolation

    Comment by insider — May 5, 2011 @ 1:07 pm

  136. DavidW: I was under the impression that James was the one that didn’t understand property rights… Unless you can point out where we’ve gone wrong?

    Also, what insider said.

    Comment by Simon Poole — May 5, 2011 @ 1:14 pm

  137. Well you see, brown people didn’t have property rights, and under our legal system they do, so therefore..

    Comment by The PC Avenger — May 5, 2011 @ 1:23 pm

  138. Yes, I understand that. It’s the bit where, in James’ perfect world, brown people are not allowed to enforce their property rights that confuses me.

    Comment by Simon Poole — May 5, 2011 @ 1:41 pm

  139. Oh where to start with the bullshit that’s been posted since I was last online?

    Qdig…you are a mental midget.Your typing and Grammar skills are akin to those of a special needs kid in a dark room.Put down the P-pipe,find your balls and come on down to Manukau if you want a face to face…I’m good for it….I doubt a keyboard pussy like you will be.

    As to Rand and Greenspan…if you had any clue you would know Greenspan was only a loose associate of Rands and never one of her close friends…thy met probably 6 times in total.Greenspan was described by Murray Rothbard as a closet Keynesian which is obvious by his actions with the Fed….an institution Rand never supported…she being a fan of the Austrian school economics of Ludwig Von Mises….which Greenspan was not.As to the rest of your deluded drivel I imagine Danyl is cringing in embarrassment for you.

    Fact is dude people like me take responsibility for our own lives and don’t seek to bludge off of others such as you.We have no need of greedy, self entitled scum like you…you are useless,pathetic and can be put out of ones mind with little effort.You on the other hand need us to fund you and keep you alive…and you resent that deeply…well diddums and tough shit.;-)

    Now that I’ve shown you to be an ignorant illiterate drop-kick how about you go and snuggle up under that piss stained duvet with your DPB rorting girlfriend in that shit hole you live in and wait for your benefit to come through to fund your booze and P habits?…there’s a good tard. ;-)

    My original position stands…I,nor any other person are alive to serve as the means to anyone else’s ends….go find some other sucker to guilt trip into craven self sacrifice,I don’t subscribe to that code of “morality”.And it seems 81% of Kiwis tend to agree going by the one news poll…..end the apartheid, treat Maori equally before the law…no better,no worse.Settle the FULL and FINAL grievances without committing new injustices on Kiwis who had nothing to do with the old ones.Give them all the national parks etc if thats what it takes and lets put this bullshit behind us once and for all.

    bradluen: I’m sure most of you are just having a laugh, but those taking this debate seriously should note you’re arguing with a guy who said that it’s stupid to claim the earth is warming, and backed this up by linking to a temperature graph that trended upwards.

    The graph shows the warmist lie that the Earth is warming at a runaway and CONSTANT upward rate year by year thanks to man’s influence….its quite obvious we are not.Sure the long historical trend is very slow gradual warming…no one disputes that and we should be damn glad for it….rebounding from an ice age tends to do that and is a good thing for human survival and prosperity.

    Comment by James — May 6, 2011 @ 12:32 am

  140. Simon….Maori have every right to go to court and seek justice for crimes committed against them same as everyone else…I never claimed otherwise.You seem to be unable to grasp the fact that Maori had NO concept of private property rights before Europeans arrived and that is what caused much of the subsequent conflict.Maori NOWDAYS have the ability to repair to that British law that we ALL should be equal before and make their case for restitution or compensation…no argument from me.

    What I have the issue with is being handed the bill(again!) for the actions of others I had no dealings with nor supported.The British Crown still exists so the responsibility lies with them and the Government of NZ who took on the debt.That Government holds vast estates and other resources….let it use those to settle up with Maori….I’d be glad to “write off” my 1 -4 millionth stake in them have these liabilities off of my taxpaying back.

    Comment by James — May 6, 2011 @ 12:43 am

  141. James, you disappoint me. You stoop just as low as QDig.

    (QDig, I was wrong. He is just as bad.)

    So, I’ll leave you to it. No intelligent debate here.

    Comment by DavidW — May 6, 2011 @ 12:45 am

  142. David…Qdig started with the threats,nasty personal insults and just plain stupidity…I’ve called him out.When dealing with leeches like him you first burn them off,then rub some salt in and if its still squirming you stomp it flat.

    Comment by James — May 6, 2011 @ 12:59 am

  143. Here’s some reading on just why Maori “property rights” pre European are just bunkum…

    http://solohq.solopassion.com/Articles/Cresswell/Property_Rights_A_Blessing_for_Maori_New_Zealand.shtml

    Comment by James — May 6, 2011 @ 4:30 am

  144. Nothing much to see here but a couple of pompous pustules trying to squeeze one another.

    Comment by Joe Wylie — May 6, 2011 @ 10:15 am

  145. James: The point is that the Treaty explicitly granted Maori European-style property rights over their lands. Article two. It is literally right there in English.

    The fact that you can’t seem to grasp this, and seem to think that the Treaty doesn’t apply to you because you didn’t personally sign it, means that I’m not going to waste any more of my time.

    Regards,

    Comment by Simon Poole — May 6, 2011 @ 2:11 pm

  146. James,

    Cresswell’s knowledge of the topic is woefully inadequate to the task he sets himself. For a start, his whole idiotic argument about an absence of property rights rests on a misunderstood amateur dictionary etymology of the word ‘taonga’ rather than recourse to an authoritative source. I could go on, but basically it’s about as useful an analysis of a foreign cultural system as you’d expect from someone who neither understands it, nor sees any reason why he should understand it before analysing it.

    About as useful, you might say, as an uneducated Islamic fundamentalist’s analysis of Western secular capitalism.

    L

    Comment by Lew — May 6, 2011 @ 3:29 pm

  147. Objectivists are worse than Marxists. A Marxist will occasionally change position when presented with facts. An objectivist will change the facts in order not to adjust the fundamental tenants of Objectivism. For example, an objectivist knows that human-induced climate change isn’t happening, the GFC was caused by the government, all renewable energy sources depend on massive subsidies and the Atlas Shrugged movie was fanfuckingtastic. Point this out and you’re a mooching, looting, Rand diminishing mental midget.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — May 6, 2011 @ 7:54 pm

  148. god guy you are a giant amongst communists. Lol.

    Comment by will — May 6, 2011 @ 8:21 pm

  149. Simon: James: The point is that the Treaty explicitly granted Maori European-style property rights over their lands. Article two. It is literally right there in English.

    Thanks for proving my point.Maori had no European style property rights UNTIL the Europeans signed a treaty with them…..case closed on that point,thanks. ;-)

    But that still doesn’t place one iota of obligation upon me or any other private NZ individual to make good for breaches of this treaty by the Crown.I,nor any other individual are the Crown….we are still the forgotten third party.

    Comment by James — May 6, 2011 @ 11:28 pm

  150. Guy….just how much warming is attributable to human activity and how much is natural? Answer that with evidence and you may just begin to have a case to put re reducing our emission’s….till then don’t waste the adults time with our dross.

    Comment by James — May 6, 2011 @ 11:31 pm

  151. What a turgid fucking shit stain of a blog. At least do some fact checking before making up bullshit about fucking Maori seats being in the Treaty. ljp

    Comment by ljp@thestandard.org.nz — May 6, 2011 @ 11:59 pm

  152. James, that wasn’t your point in the slightest. In fact, it’s the point that everyone else has been making, while you’ve been arguing that Maori don’t have property rights at all. The treaty established formal property rights for Maori. Rights that extend to all the lands in their possession. At any rate, pre-treaty conceptualizations of property are irrelevant, since the issue is with land taken by force or deception after the treaty was signed, and property rights established.

    The Crown later violated or allowed to be, the property rights of Maori, as granted in the treaty. I assume, at this point, that you understand this.

    I assume, perhaps wrongly, that you also understand that knowingly receiving or making use of stolen property also violates the property rights of the initial owner.

    If you benefit from land and resources that were obtained as a consequence of the treaty having being violated, then guess what! You’ve violated the property rights of Maori.

    Anyway, why are you so aggrieved over a settlement package that currently only totals 952,082,645? Christ man, get a sense of perspective. Is your petty hatred of all things Maori really worth denying them the property rights they were (and that you agree) were granted under the treaty? Is the pittance of that amount in which you have a stake in really how much you consider sufficient to deny over six hundred thousand people their property rights? Ignoring, of course, that much of the value therein has come from assests you have made no contribution towards at all, further reducing your perceived obligation?

    Comment by The PC Avenger — May 7, 2011 @ 12:59 am

  153. The laws of physics don’t apply to objectivists. Let alone those of logic and grammar. They can be over-ridden by invoking the mighty Rand.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — May 7, 2011 @ 7:11 am

  154. Nice non answer there smiley…..if you can’t refute something go for the silly smear huh…? Typical.

    Comment by James — May 7, 2011 @ 7:13 am

  155. Whatever PC enabler.I’m still not taking any responsibility for that which neither I,nor my ancestors did.Take your collectivist blame game and bugger off.

    Comment by James — May 7, 2011 @ 7:15 am

  156. Aw. Ain’t it cute, James and Guy are courting.

    Comment by shakes ead — May 7, 2011 @ 8:44 am

  157. James- I am not on the dole, dips shit, and nether is my partner, your assumptions show you to be exactly what you are, full of shit. Also my insults are far more inventive that yours ; )…
    This is the comments section of a blog, the odd spelling mistake is really quite irrelevant.
    It is well kmown that Alan Greenspan, if not purely Libertarian, was heavily influenced by Libertarianism and thought highly of Ayn rand, poor little expelled aristocrat that she was.
    Now that I have demolished your latest torrent of verbal diarrhoea masquerading as valid argument, lets get back to the original debate.
    The poll was on “are Maori Special in New Zealand”. This is a misleading and a completely fraudulent framing of the debate, making the result meaningless. Redress for the ensuing damages of a breach of contract does not make the aggrieved party “special”, The breach being that Moari weren’t given the protection and rights of British citizens, as vast tracts of land were simply stolen by the crown, which was and is against the law. To the extent that the situation of Maori can in part be attributed to a breach of contract by the crown, some attempt at redress is NOT treating Maori as SPECIAL. in fact to fail to do so, would be racist, implying because they are Maori, we do not have to honour our contractual obligations, unlike any other group of people with the rights of British citizens.
    Personally, I don’t see anyway for you to weasel out of this, even with your reserve battery of propaganda and slogans, arguments etc you did not come up with your self but are parroting from someone else. How do I know this? because I’ve heard it all before, in almost exactly the same language.
    You my friend are a simulacra, at this stage of your evolution, not an actual person, and you will not be until you learn to think for yourself.
    I think I’m going to make a specific study of this Cult called libertarianism, and become an expert at by the way can not survive nor would exist with out the socialist, collectivist, instincts of humanity; the ability to co-operate, look after the weak, share resources, plan, etc, which is the ONE and ONLY adaptation that has allowed out skinny, hairless, fangless, clawless arses to survive.
    (I know how you guys love to go on about natural order and darwinism)
    I don’t like to pretend I’m an expert on the various schools of economics, but Libertarianism is a cult my friend, or a virulent meme, ( think genes but in the mind, the strong ones survive and reproduce in other minds ) ultimately it is flawed. For many reasons, the first being that you wouldn’t even know what it was it wasn’t for the socialist instinct in society which has fought for over the generations, and largely paid for, YOUR EDUCATION, you like most libertarians, would ultimately be quite happy to do away with this for everybody else. (except the wealthy who can pay their own).

    Go live on an island some where with your cultist mates, and we’ll see how long you last..

    Comment by QDig — May 7, 2011 @ 10:12 am

  158. James thinks Maori are special in NZ; he doesn’t have an obligation to respect their property rights.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — May 7, 2011 @ 11:53 am

  159. “I think I’m going to make a specific study of this Cult called libertarianism, [.... ? ...] which by the way can not survive nor would exist with out the socialist, collectivist, instincts of humanity; the ability to co-operate, look after the weak, share resources, plan, etc, which is the ONE and ONLY adaptation that has allowed out skinny, hairless, fangless, clawless arses to survive.”

    Let me rewrite that… okay I admit grammar does matter if it means a paragraph doesn’t make any sense…

    The point is.. libertarianism is a cult, like any other, sharing the same characteristics, as I have already pointed out, similiar to born again christians etc

    There are people who specialising in deprogramming those who have been inculcated, but you have to WANT to change James… and awareness is the first step.

    Regardless, no rigid ideology is a sound basis for interpreting reality.

    James’ bizarre cultism aside,

    Under the contract of the treaty of waitangi, Moari were among other things guaranteed the rights and protections of british citizens.

    The crown failed to live up to its contractual obligations.

    As a result damages have been suffered by the moari people not limited to the loss of land, but also the social disadvantages that result from this disenfranchisement.

    Any attempt by the crown to redress this, or its representatives can not be classed as “special treatment.”

    To claim that Maori do not have right to redress is therefore Racist, it is to say that a people do not have the same rights as others.

    What this is really about is a right wing, liberal monetarist, privileged, upper class, rich prick, Don Brash, appealing to red neck new zealanders, running a little side show to get votes.

    Its all national and the right wing have ever done, appeal to peoples greed and racism…

    Economic liberalism… god, you precious little pricks with your silver spoons, who resent having to share with those who are not born with the same privileges. You have no idea how some people grow up in this country.

    Its NOT a level playing field. It is not true that ANYONE can make it. All a lot of people want is a good days pay for a good days work, theses libertarian pricks would turn the vast majority of us into a slave class while them and there fat cat mates sit in there mansions earning money off the backs of others labour. And they have the audacity begrudge solo mums a bit of support. Guess what mate, John Keys mum was on the DPB, and he lived in a state house. Where do you think he’d be today if she hadn’t had that support?

    In India have a great private enterprise solution to poverty, its called throwing acid in kids faces, and sending them out of the street to beg, but of course, you take most of the profit.

    Neither you nor Don Brash have any idea what its like to grow up Moari, or has been like for generations. The fact is, it is because racism has been allowed to flourish in this country, and to deny this would be a grave conceit, that some effort at redress must be made in the first place. This redress can not then be classed “special treatment”.

    Comment by QDig — May 7, 2011 @ 12:44 pm

  160. Ah James, so finally we get right down to the core of your opposition to treaty settlements. You are, as was hinted at earlier, a racist. And a cowardly one at that.

    You argue against them because you are incapable or unwilling to take responsibility for your conscious, and even proud, complicity in the denying and violation of their property rights.

    At best, you consider the property rights of hundreds of thousands of individuals to be less important than your own. At worst, you consider them to be less important than the property rights of non-Maori. That is racist, and I think it’s about time you grew up and admitted it.

    Comment by The PC Avenger — May 7, 2011 @ 2:16 pm

  161. What a turgid fucking shit stain of a blog. At least do some fact checking before making up bullshit about fucking Maori seats being in the Treaty. ljp

    This post ‘addressing’ something I did not actually write appears to come from Lynn Prentice of The Standard, posting at midnight on a Friday.

    Comment by danylmc — May 7, 2011 @ 5:59 pm

  162. I love this shit….I have repeatedly said I’m happy for Maori to seek justice and even that if that means giving them all the National parks and other state lands I would be happy for that to happen….this translates into lefty emasculated hand wringer speech as “eek racism!”….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…boring.

    Just because I rightly say to to altruistic guilt tripping attempts to make me believe I have some obligation to keep paying for a never-ending gravy train seeking redress for things totally unconnected to me I’m somehow a racist……which shows me you have no real argument and are on a mental plain with old Hone.

    Qdig…..not interested pal.You are obviously mentally challenged and I don’t pick on those people….so go find your carer and have sleepy time.

    Comment by James — May 7, 2011 @ 6:10 pm

  163. Except James, no one except you has claimed that you are obligated to “keep paying for a never-ending gravy train”. You’re arguing against something no one is promoting, and that you’ve just made up. Whether this comes from your misunderstanding of the treaty, the property rights it provided, obligations it creates, or how settlements have been granted is unclear, but it’s evident that you’re not concerned about any of that. You say you’re happy for Maori to see justice and redress, yet whine like a spoilt child that they have.

    But, this is really a waste of our time. You’re incapable of recognizing the incongruence between saying you support justice yet crying when it is provided in some small measure.

    Comment by The PC Avenger — May 7, 2011 @ 6:33 pm

  164. James…mentally challenged? a few un-edited mistakes just mean I really can’t be bothered spending to much energy trying to educate a closet racist moron who prattles on about things he knows nothing about, and blatantly swallows the cock of some religion that is considered absurd even by the right wing.

    Your a snivelling, pompous self satisfied little turd and you know it. So how the hell are you going to build roads, hospitals schools, pay the police, etc etc etc, without taxes James? Come on then, last time I asked some fuckwit libertarian how his philosophy could be employed to run a functioning society, he stuttered and coughed and said… ” alright… well for starters, FUCK THE POOR, you act like all life is about his helping the poor..”

    Yeah good start, that really sounds like the moral bed rock that we need for the basis of a really wonderful society James.

    Whatever my mental challenges, which of course you have no fucking idea of, you piss ant , brainless little shit, your such a dumb arse, you can’t even see the obvious fact that your philosophy is an absolutely worthless pipe dream little fantasy, that will never, ever, come to fruition.

    Yes James, I could be a fukn mongoloid for all you know, but I’d still be smarter than you, because I can figure out what you can’t. (and its not that difficult)

    The fact is, i have wiped the fucking floor with you and your pathetic belief system in this debate. this is in no way negated by your refusal to admit the fact.

    Enjoy the rest of your pathetic, ignorant, deluded life, loser.

    Comment by QDig — May 7, 2011 @ 7:01 pm

  165. Danyl, doesn’t really look like Lynn’s style. I assume the IP address matches, though?

    L

    Comment by Lew — May 7, 2011 @ 10:34 pm

  166. Qdig….I asked your Mum in the shower this morning why you turned out such a pussy douche….she blamed thalidomide…in that she hadn’t got h dose to make you turn out normal.

    Come on jerk….explain why you get the right to steal from me…you gutless piece of second hand shit.

    Comment by James — May 8, 2011 @ 1:14 am

  167. “112.Look at it this way James. Say your parents die and leave you some money in their will. And then their former business partner appears and is able to prove in court that the money your parents left you was stolen from them. Would you feel that you have no obligation to repay them, as you’re just an innocent third party?

    Comment by danylmc — May 4, 2011 @ 10:21 pm ”

    Danylmc, Pysho Milt and Co

    Is there some reason why the Limitation Act does not apply here?

    I was ripped off, but it was 10 years ago, so tough shit for me. You guys got time to go into bat for a WASP, or you too preoccupied?

    Comment by Charles Wintergreen — May 8, 2011 @ 2:10 am

  168. Lew

    Would you be kind enough to define “taonga” for me in a non-amateurish way

    thanks

    Comment by Charles Wintergreen — May 8, 2011 @ 2:57 am

  169. I’m not sure what the relevance of the indigenous people of the Chatham Islands is, or why that would have any effect on the justice of Maori claims. But feel free to explain.

    Comment by Stephen Judd — April 28, 2011 @ 6:29 pm

    Stephen

    Chatham Islands are in New Zealand,aren’t they?

    Your comment is enigmatic, seems akin to me saying .. but the Tainui are from the Waikato – not sure what their relevance is…”

    Comment by Charles Wintergreen — May 8, 2011 @ 3:06 am

  170. Can anyone tell me from where comes the notion that historical oppresion can be the only reason for a current “under-performance’ by a race.

    Might pay to take a wee trip to Singapore, and check out how their coolie ancestry is holding back the Singaporeans (who couldn’t give a rat’s arse)

    Comment by Charles Wintergreen — May 8, 2011 @ 3:10 am

  171. Be a good boy James.

    “…explain why you get the right to steal from me”

    How did you get your things Jimbo? And who says they’re yours? Answer without reference to the batty, toxic cougar.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — May 8, 2011 @ 8:14 am

  172. Looks to me James is about to join Leon in the great pantheon of ex-dim post posters…

    This thread though surely demonstrates the utter unsuitability of Don Brash to be allowed anywhere near the levers of power. 167 posts. Some of the nastiest rubbish I’ve ever read on this usually reasoned blog. All because one old man is prepared to unleash the dogs of race hate so he can seize power. Don Brash would have us at each others throats, and enjoy the spectacle.

    Comment by Sanctuary — May 8, 2011 @ 11:49 am

  173. If you have to tell blatant lies about Brash Sanctuary then its pretty obvious you have lost the debate….and Kiwis will see that and vote accordingly.

    Comment by James — May 8, 2011 @ 12:03 pm

  174. This ceased to be anything resembling a debate a long time ago.

    Comment by Rhinocrates — May 8, 2011 @ 12:20 pm

  175. Even the IMF have figured that the right wing are full of shit…..

    http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/20115712428956842.html

    The IMF’s change of heart
    english.aljazeera.net
    The International Monetary Fund has realised that a nation’s economic well-being depends on social equality and justice.

    2 minutes ago · · Like · · Share
    Quinn Williams only took them a hundred years.. as far as I’m concerned this is the story of the century… eat it up libertarians…
    about a minute ago · Like

    EAT IT UP JAMES.

    Comment by QDig — May 8, 2011 @ 3:08 pm

  176. Why Qdig? In no system BUT a Libertarian do you get true social equality and true justice. Stealing money via tax to give to those who it doesn’t belong to is no kind of justice…its actually theft.

    Comment by James — May 8, 2011 @ 3:28 pm

  177. Stealing is theft! Now there’s an insight.

    Taxation on the other hand is only theft if you need to redefine words in order to conform to the principles of your cougar-worshiping cult.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — May 8, 2011 @ 3:42 pm

  178. I asked some questions in comments 167 – 170.

    They were serious questions. Can someone take time out fromcalling anyone who disagrees with them “racist”, and anser them?

    Oh, I osted two more questions on another thread, but I’ll repose them here.

    1/ Was the Treaty of Waitangi translated from English to Maori or the other way around. In the first instance.

    2/ When was the first recoded instance of a claimthatthe Treaty was not being “honoured”?

    Thanks

    Comment by charles wintergreen — May 8, 2011 @ 5:11 pm

  179. I invite you to watch this documentary if you are not familiar with the dangers extreme right wing economic policy, lassaiz faire (as favoured by libertarians) economics, and the fraudulent practices of the financial elite.

    “Inside Job”

    From Academy Award® nominated filmmaker, Charles Ferguson (“No End In Sight”), comes INSIDE JOB, the first film to expose the shocking truth behind the economic crisis of 2008. The global financial meltdown, at a cost of over $20 trillion, resulted in millions of people losing their homes and jobs. Through extensive research and interviews with major financial insiders, politicians and journalists, INSIDE JOB traces the rise of a rogue industry and unveils the corrosive relationships which have corrupted politics, regulation and academia. Narrated by Academy Award® winner Matt Damon, INSIDE JOB was made on location in the United States, Iceland, England, France, Singapore, and China.

    Comment by QDig — May 9, 2011 @ 1:56 am

  180. QDig

    You are a wordy type,judging by some of your comments – seems to me you fancy yourself having a handle just about everything.

    And I note you have been back here…. but not so you could spare a couple of minutes responding to my questions above, eh?

    Comment by charles wintergreen — May 9, 2011 @ 2:58 am

  181. Danylmc, Pysho Milt and Co

    Is there some reason why the Limitation Act does not apply here?

    Pysho Milt couldn’t be here today, but I’ll step up for him. Answer:

    Presumably, yes. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me a Treaty between peoples isn’t overruled by domestic law. If the Treaty’s still in force, breaches of it still have to be dealt with. And I may not be a lawyer but the govt has a shitload of them, and none of them seem to think the Limitation Act applies either. You could lobby the govt to legislate application of the Limitation Act to breaches of the Treaty, but it would be a suicidal govt that took you up on it. Try Brash, he doesn’t seem to give a shit whether something’s a good idea or not.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — May 9, 2011 @ 8:04 am

  182. Give it up Charles…they are in their own little world.People wanting equality and not to be stolen from to pay off others debts are “racists”.Qdig is convinced that the multi layered regulated Government involvement in the US and world economy’s is a “Libertarian free market” when its obvious to a 5 year old it was the exact opposite.None of them will answer a question with a straight answer…..take that as a win on principle and find a better use for your time…I am.

    Comment by James — May 9, 2011 @ 8:21 am

  183. Yeah, take it as a win James. That’s what Donald Trump does when he gets sonned.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — May 9, 2011 @ 8:49 am

  184. After all, it’s through taking things as a win on principle that Trump was able to make such a success of that casino company.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — May 9, 2011 @ 8:55 am

  185. ….and still they can offer nothing but some reference to Trump…….cookoo!

    Comment by James — May 9, 2011 @ 9:16 am

  186. James,

    School holidays are over, aren’t they? Don’t you have year 11 social studies in, like, 45 minutes? Better run for the bus …!

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — May 9, 2011 @ 9:21 am

  187. Oh the economically illiterate knob Andrew Geddis has scolded me ….the horror!

    Don’t you have to have ya balls back in your misses night stand by this time on a Monday Andrew?

    Comment by James — May 9, 2011 @ 9:34 am

  188. Charles, I’m not your year 11 social studies teacher. Go ask Profs Walker, Durie (Sr and Jr), Kawharu (Jr and Sr), King, Belich, Spoonley and Orange.

    L

    Comment by Lew — May 9, 2011 @ 9:50 am

  189. DON BRASH TO FACE FUTURE – RETIEMENT IN OLD PEOPLES HOME!!!
    Don Brashes racist korero remarks ‘one law for all’ has been proven by history’s geneaologies in charge. What he really means to say is ‘one law to favour the rich’!! This type of arrogance is overdue for a Maori Lore asserted change of a radical kind!! Constant English colonial lawbook changes has led this country to its current decline, alongside a numbers accounting system thats needs a transitional change into new systems is the real taiaha truth. I tell you this fact this one-sided racist pride and arrogance attracts its penaly in due season!! I reckon the old fool from old school is fighting against his future…retirement ahead, in an old peoples home where he can talk to himself and play with himself all day long!!!
    NOTE TO OPPSOING REPLIES: Cant handle the taiaha truth aye, your understanding of justice has been corrupted by your arrogance left uncorrected for too long!!
    RangiMarie Bosma
    TE ARAWA INTO THE KINGITANGA

    Comment by RangiMarie Bosma — May 9, 2011 @ 10:16 am

  190. QDig said…
    the first film to expose the shocking truth behind the economic crisis of 2008.

    It seems that you’re in the dark about the mechanisms that caused the recent economic crisis?

    Go to Matt Nolan’s economic blog (see the following link) and read some of the papers which I’ve linked to over on that thread, because they will enlighten you on the subject.

    “Financial stability, the crisis, and counter factuals”

    http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2011/04/21/financial-stability-the-crisis-and-counterfactuals/

    There are more publications that I could show you, but perhaps you can just start with those ones I’ve posted up on Matt’s blog.

    Comment by Falafulu Fisi — May 9, 2011 @ 11:14 am

  191. And now Rangi “the bludger” Bosma turns up squealing for her handouts to continue……wow some major credibility just arrived to back you guys up huh….? ;-)

    Comment by James — May 9, 2011 @ 2:35 pm

  192. seems like some of you guys here don’t like ansering questions,eh?

    Too many things seem wrongly said here. And left unchallenged.

    For starters, Qdigs justification of big government that it is “instinctive”. Tell that to the Cambodians.

    And the bit about the socio-economic indicators doesn’t make sense, either. Just because you go into partnership with someone doesn’t guarantee financial or socio-economic equality, does it?

    Bill Gates, Prince William and I may have equal rights under the law, but they sure as hell arent about to play bridge with me, or let me date Cate’s sister. My grandkids not likely to have the same amount of money as theirs, either, but it doesnt follow that they must necessarily have treated me unfairly.

    Wouldn’t “How Maori are faring now compared to how they were before” be a more relevant comparison?
    Life expectancy would be a good indicator, perhaps?

    Comment by Charles Wintergreen — May 10, 2011 @ 1:42 am

  193. Lew

    One thing I have noticed about you hand-wringers, anyone shakes your ivory tower you get real bitchy real quick, eh?

    Never meant to treat you like you are my Social Studies teacher- just asked a couple of real simple questions which obviously touched a nerve. So sorry.

    Comment by Charles Wintergreen — May 10, 2011 @ 2:29 am

  194. Answering questions is fine. I’ve been over this ground exhaustively on my own blog this past week. But answering NZ History 101 questions for people who can’t be fucked to even read the wikipedia article on the topics they’re asking about? Yeah, nah.

    L

    Comment by Lew — May 10, 2011 @ 7:17 am

  195. Firstly, You have raised some interesting points in what you have said, but sadly I must disagree in what you are saying about how Don Brash is a racist. Yes he didn’t say anything about the ANZAC’s historical meaning but in no way does that mean that he doesn’t care about it. Your last few lines and saying that he doesn’t care, YOU ARE PUTTING words in his mouth. If you were an journalist, you would get fired for what you just said as it isn’t a fact. You have no idea about whyat he thinks about that and shame on you for thinking that you do.

    Comment by Zach — October 15, 2011 @ 8:03 pm

  196. The Maori seats were only put in place to encourage Maori to enter parliament. They were supposed to be scrapped after 5 years. Historical grievances should not be a factor in law, considering not one person alive today was even involved in the grievances. For how long will we have to keep compensating Maori for the mistakes of our ancestors, do we have to wait another 500 years for the wounds to heal?

    Comment by Kennith — July 1, 2012 @ 12:32 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 399 other followers

%d bloggers like this: