Creative uses for Brash’s “Hobson’s pledge” pamphlets

48 comments on “Creative uses for Brash’s “Hobson’s pledge” pamphlets ”

• Comments are now closed

1. roy cartland 1

   23 June 2017 at 12:53 pm

   Return them straight to David Seymore c/o Parliament with your own ‘custom’ greeting. He can pass them on to his friend Donald Brash.
2. bwaghorn 2

   23 June 2017 at 1:15 pm

   as bad as key was , we dodged a bullet when that horrible dead inside old fuck brash didn’t become leader
   • Richard McGrath 2.1

     23 June 2017 at 4:07 pm

     Yep, avoided a man of principle for good old Smile and Wave. Boy, weren’t we lucky…
     • marty mars 2.1.1

       23 June 2017 at 4:09 pm

       Lol man of principle ha ha ha that is a good one dick.
3. Carolyn_nth 3

   23 June 2017 at 1:30 pm

   Got it out of my mail box. Tore it up immediately – straight into the recycling bin .
   • AB 3.1

     23 June 2017 at 4:49 pm

     Mine had been slimed on by the snails in my letter box. Pretty disgusting.
     Oh wait – I got rid of the snails last week
4. Richard McGrath 4

   23 June 2017 at 2:49 pm

   Can someone quote the “racist” parts of Brash’s Orewa speech – you know, the bit where he promotes one race ahead of another?
   • McFlock 4.1

     23 June 2017 at 3:00 pm

     Why are you bringing up that speech? I can’t see anyone else mentioning it.
     • Richard McGrath 4.1.1

       23 June 2017 at 3:53 pm

       Duh… only the front page of The Standard which links to this page: “Ex Nat leader Don Brash, of racist Orewa speech and Iwi/Kiwi fame, is still out there fanning the flames of division in NZ.”
       • McFlock 4.1.1.1

         23 June 2017 at 4:34 pm

         okey dokey, fair enough then. Didn’t see it there – was reading the post and comments.

         Wikipedia: links to a journal article by Jon Johansson and quotes “Whether intended or not, the Orewa speech reinforced the ignorant and racist stereotype that Māori were ‘savages’ before the ‘gift’ of European civilisation was visited upon them”. That’s one perspective, that for example his dwelling on a shallow interpretation of the musket wars whereas the European settlers were merely “not the cream” reinforces the concept of Maori being more primitive than Europeans.

         Then there’s his fixation on “part-Maori”: as Johansson write “[…] on one level one can say that no adaptive, uplifting or educative speech about race, anywhere, at any time, has ever included a discussion about blood purity”. A bit ofa red flag there.

         There are other issues, and lumped together the entire thing is well and truly fucked. So the short answer to your question is “all of it”.
         • AB 4.1.1.1.1

           23 June 2017 at 5:43 pm

           Yes – racism is not just as Richard describes it ‘ “promot[ing] one race ahead of another”
           In fact Richard’s definition is so narrow and particular that it looks like it might be specifically designed to label as ‘racist’ any sort of remedial or affirmative action taken to benefit minorities.

           The foundation of racism is the belief in the superiority of one race or culture over another. Given that foundation, it is easy to assume that the beliefs, practices and worldview of the inferior culture can be discarded from public life and become merely a private matter or for ceremonial purposes only. The members of the inferior culture are assimilated seamlessly (and gratefully) into the superior one. This is pretty much what Brash does in the Orewa speech.

           In other words, Brash is an “assimilationist racist”. A harsher judge might call him a “cultural ethnic cleanser” – meaning he doesn’t of course want to kill actual people, just remove any influence of their culture, particularly if those influences (communal action, viewing the natural world as sacred) might run counter to his own neoliberal beliefs.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2

     23 June 2017 at 3:17 pm

     What makes you “think” only parts of the speech are racist?
     • Richard McGrath 4.2.1

       23 June 2017 at 3:54 pm

       Go on then, quote a single sentence of Brash’s speech that promotes one race over another.
       • marty mars 4.2.1.1

         23 June 2017 at 4:12 pm

         All the bits after hi im don…
         • Richard McGrath 4.2.1.1.1

           23 June 2017 at 7:55 pm

           That’s not a single sentence. Quote me one. Just one.
           • marty mars 4.2.1.1.1.1

             23 June 2017 at 8:02 pm

             Well you quote one and I’ll point out the lie.
             • Richard McGrath …

               23 June 2017 at 8:19 pm

               Still nothing. OK, that’s fine.
               • marty mars …

                 23 June 2017 at 8:34 pm

                 The lie is It isn’t fine, it is far from fine, very far.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.2

         23 June 2017 at 6:24 pm

         This discussion isn’t bound to your narrow demands. Since you failed to grasp the point I already made, here it is again: we are concerned with the meaning of the Orewa speech in totality, for what it fails to say as much as for what it says.

         However, we are far more concerned with the racist things Brash said today than we are with the racist things he said in 2004, no matter how much you admired and were comforted by them.
         • Richard McGrath 4.2.1.2.1

           23 June 2017 at 7:58 pm

           So ‘racist’ means whatever you want it to mean, and no-one here can quote a single sentence that is racist in Brash’s speech. Just as I thought.
           • McFlock 4.2.1.2.1.1

             23 June 2017 at 8:27 pm

             “I am sure most Maori are as embarrassed by the present situation as most non-Maori are astounded. ”
             Now you’ll want to spend a week arguing about whether it’s racist, because you’re too tone-deaf to unpack any of the implicit or explicit assumptions.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.2.1.2

             24 June 2017 at 8:49 am

             For fucks sake Dick, he employs a blood purity argument.

             I can quote plenty of other racist things in Brash’s speech, and I’m under precisely zero obligation to answer your rude querulous demands.

             In short, your stupid pwned argument is stupid and useless, no matter how many times you declare yourself the winner.
   • mauī 4.3

     23 June 2017 at 3:19 pm

     That was the “One rule for all” speech. Notice the Hobson’s sledge motto is “We are now one people”.

     You really think much has changed?
     • McFlock 4.3.1

       23 June 2017 at 4:40 pm

       It’s a dogwhistle to the oppressed white people. Brash bookended his Orewa speech withthe little tidbit that Hobson said (in Maori) to each signer that “We are one people”.

       We’re supposed to have a wink and a nudge to how pc things have got, and then agree that we need to put it all in the 1840 context when there was no racism 🙂
   • Carolyn_nth 4.4

     23 June 2017 at 3:25 pm

     You do understand that racism is not just about treating groups of people differently? It’s about which groups have the power to define the way society operates – in their own favour?

     That white people telling brown people to maintain the status quo, which benefits white people more than brown people, is actually maintaining inequalities of power, access to resources, etc

     As illustrated here;

     and here.
   • Daveosaurus 4.5

     24 June 2017 at 2:19 pm

     It’s racist because it’s based on the false and racist assumption that Māori have some sort of ‘special privileges’ that other New Zealanders do not have.
5. The Real Matthew 5

   23 June 2017 at 3:24 pm

   So giving every New Zealand citizen the same rights as every other New Zealand citizen is racist? Having special special rights for part-Maori is not racist?

   Martin Luther King would be rolling in his grave at the racial inequality being peddled in New Zealand.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1

     23 June 2017 at 3:28 pm

     Please provide an example of “special rights”. While you’re “thinking”, here a a few of the top of my head.

     Having a lower likelihood of arrest.
     Shorter prison sentences on conviction.
     More likely to be employed.
     More likely to be wealthy.
     More likely to be healthy.
     More likely to be housed.

     …and so on.
     • Richard McGrath 5.1.1

       23 June 2017 at 3:56 pm

       Those are not rights.
       • marty mars 5.1.1.1

         23 June 2017 at 4:15 pm

         Do you want those things? Why don’t you want others to have them too? What the hell is wrong with you?
         • Richard McGrath 5.1.1.1.1

           23 June 2017 at 8:05 pm

           Yep I want some of those things; I also want to win Lotto, but that’s not a right either.

           MM: ” Why don’t you want others to have them too?”

           Are you psychotic, believing you can read my thoughts?
           • marty mars 5.1.1.1.1.1

             23 June 2017 at 8:11 pm

             It was a question – I used one of these – ?
             • Richard McGrath …

               23 June 2017 at 8:17 pm

               Yes it was a question – in which you appear to state that I don’t want others to have health, wealth, etc. How exactly do you know this?
               • marty mars …

                 23 June 2017 at 8:31 pm

                 I asked a question- havent you done that page of english yet – shit i thought year 9s did that. Typical gnat stuff up with education.
     • patricia bremner 5.1.2

       24 June 2017 at 8:27 am

       And another special right… More likely to collect the pension.
       (The proposed changes will lock in more overt racism. )
   • mauī 5.2

     23 June 2017 at 4:04 pm

     Same rights. Ok, all bachs to be freely open to anyone without decent accommodation in the area. All sports cars to be handed in and the profits raised to be reinvested in the local community. Large scale landowners to allow full public access to their land.

     This is what you and Brash are on about right.. 🙂
     • Richard McGrath 5.2.1

       23 June 2017 at 8:15 pm

       No, what you’re postulating is the abolition of private property. Don Brash wouldn’t like that.
6. McFlock 6

   23 June 2017 at 3:24 pm

   one nation, one people, one treaty. Catchy. Follow it up with a “Victory, yay!” and they might have something there…
7. Stuart Munro 7

   23 June 2017 at 4:16 pm

   Whatever else Brash may have to say is pretty much munted by his determination to destroy the Maori seats.

   Although I’m not particularly impressed by some of those who occupy them, they give Maori no disproportionate advantage, and as long as voters want them there is nothing unfair about them having them. In fact destroying them could be considered like the Republican gerrymanders in the US – intended to prevent the representation of local minorities.
8. marty mars 8

   23 June 2017 at 4:21 pm

   I’m picking up dog poo with my one – it really does manifest – like attracts like – almost magical. Could be a late night job for Don selling the poo picking up efficiency of this pamphlet – could be big.
9. Ad 9

   23 June 2017 at 6:47 pm

   They should print them more absorbent.
   • NZJester 9.1

     23 June 2017 at 7:07 pm

     Bad idea, you don’t want to use that as it is full enough of the stuff you might want to use it to remove anyway.
10. Graeme 10

    23 June 2017 at 7:15 pm

    Intrigued how it’s targeting the “Racist National Government”

    Could be interesting…
    • Carolyn_nth 10.1

      23 June 2017 at 7:26 pm

      Brash attempts to explain, as reported by RNZ in an article about the pamphlets having been reported to the HRC:

      The Human Rights Commission has received complaints about a series of leaflets including from Hobson’s Pledge, a group fronted by Don Brash, which aims to end what it calls ‘race-based privilege’.

      The leaflets from the Hobson’s Pledge group and an associated publishing company came in a group of three and outline claims about special treatment for Māori and fears about Chinese investment.
      …
      Former National Party leader Don Brash said he could only comment on the Hobson’s Pledge pamphlet which was aimed specifically at National Party policy.

      He said anyone who said it was racist was misguided.

      “I think the people making complaints simply don’t understand the issue.

      “The pamphlet is simply saying, in recent years the National government, which had promised equal citizenship loudly from opposition, has been betraying that position.”

      Dr Brash said he did not know the other two pamphlets would be delivered at the same time.
11. Thinkerr 11

    23 June 2017 at 8:20 pm

    Instead of voicing opposition, why doesn’t Brash form a Hobsons Pledge party and challenge the government at election time?

    If a significant number of New Zealanders agree with his ideas, he can win seats and bargain for a seat at the table.

    On the other hand…
12. mauī 12

    24 June 2017 at 12:30 pm

    How to deal with a pledgite. “Hang on David we’ll switch you off if you don’t.. shut up”
    • marty mars 12.1

      24 June 2017 at 8:41 pm

      That was great. Great to see Hone doing it. Great to see Don Brash fronting up and great that David Round got told off.
13. Tricledrown 13

    25 June 2017 at 10:24 pm

    The exclusive Brethren are all over this.
    Don Brash has close connections with the EB.
    Even the type set wording and layout colour schemes of the EB pamphlets 2004-5 when BruceHales connived with Don Brash and National.
    Delivery and publication is not cheap.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS