Daily review 27/04/2022

36 comments on “Daily review 27/04/2022 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. roblogic 1

   27 April 2022 at 6:16 pm

   Free speech requires limits. Not sure if Musk understands that.

   I am always reminded that the murderer of 51 Muslims was convinced that his murders would have popular support. That is how a moderation free sustained laissez-frierre 'universal toleration' of speech ecosphere like 8chan, helped to foment hatred, from words into actions. https://t.co/9wWE55FN5u

   — Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara (@Te_Taipo) April 27, 2022

   Twitter founder Jack Dorsey has a rather idealistic vision of his tweety bird platform

   In principle, I don’t believe anyone should own or run Twitter. It wants to be a public good at a protocol level, not a company. Solving for the problem of it being a company however, Elon is the singular solution I trust. I trust his mission to extend the light of consciousness.

   — jack⚡️ (@jack) April 26, 2022
   • Dennis Frank 1.1

     27 April 2022 at 7:07 pm

     Elon is the singular solution I trust

     So there's two board members heading in the same direction. Maybe more, time will tell. I wonder if the board will adopt a set of operational principles.

     Musk’s vision is to generate revenue for Twitter from subscriptions rather than advertising. Without having to worry about attracting and retaining advertisers, Twitter would have less pressure to focus on content moderation. This could make Twitter a sort of freewheeling opinion site for paying subscribers.

     https://scroll.in/article/1022666/elon-musks-vision-for-twitter-may-worsen-its-misinformation-problem

     The writer is apprehensive about a lack of content moderation (Anjana Susarla is a Professor of Information Systems at the Michigan State University.). Given the likely size of the subscriber community, seems inevitable that intelligent design of a suitable moderation system will become a priority – even if they go for open slather as policy, the herding shit hitting the proverbial will likely force realisation that it was a mistake.

     Twitter’s own algorithmic bias bounty challenge concluded that there needs to be a community-led approach to build better algorithms. A very creative exercise developed by the MIT Media Lab asks middle schoolers to re-imagine the YouTube platform with ethics in mind. Perhaps it is time to ask Musk to do the same with Twitter.

     Good thinking there, prof! I'd go for crowd-sourcing editorial advice in general (from users) with reference to moderation as first priority…
   • felix 1.2

     28 April 2022 at 7:27 am

     Kemara is a violent extremist best known for his involvement in an armed militia intent on pursuing political goals via a rifle barrel.

     Why anyone would give a damn what he thinks about the appropriate limits of political discourse is a mystery to me.

     But I suppose by the same token he might have a unique perspective on the Christchurch massacre.
     • Shanreagh 1.2.1

       28 April 2022 at 8:08 am

       Obviously you did not read his updates etc on the protest at Parliament Grounds. Also his continued exposing of those on the far right Sivell, Flutey, Counterspin, the farcical Sheriffs and Sov Cit movement etc. His thoughts on the Canterbury massacre come from a distaste for those involved in far right politics/thoughts.

       Amazing how prescient some of the rebels of yore were isn't it? Some of what Tame Iti is saying is quite mainstream and commonsense now but it was seen as revolutionary at one time. Of course those mired in the thoughts and actions of the past and not paying attention to the movement of thought/discourse will still find them revolutionary etc.
     • swordfish 1.2.2

       28 April 2022 at 6:54 pm

       .

       But I suppose by the same token he might have a unique perspective on the Christchurch massacre.

       LOL …Convoy protest 21/2/22 « The Standard… bear in mind the bloated Pakeha Woke New Middle-Class (see Shanreagh above), always poised to indulge in performative narcissism on a truly ostentatious scale, experience a genuine frisson of delight at the merest mention of violent, deluded wanna-be Māori Che Guevaras … Colonisation, it seems, justifies anything & everything (unless, of course, it's inflicted on the affluent Woke themselves) … and … that all-important aura of radical chic.
       • RedLogix 1.2.2.1

         28 April 2022 at 7:55 pm

         that I can't write this funny
   • Populuxe1 1.3

     28 April 2022 at 3:59 pm

     The cynic might observe that the NZ Police had zero intel on the Christchurch shooter because he and his ilk, rather than exercise free speech in public, were radicalising and organising as secretively as possible. It's the ones that don't wear their views on their sleeve that you have to worry about. The loud ones you know to keep an eye on.
2. Dennis Frank 2

   27 April 2022 at 7:22 pm

   Slimeball A reviews slimeball B interviewing slimeball A:

   Unlike others, I don’t believe Piers is a complete slimeball, but he lost a lot of credibility. Interestingly, many of the Fake News Media outlets are covering his mistake. They view it as potentially fraudulent, and so do I. Piers is off to a bad start, but thanks to me, he may get a final burst of big ratings before it all comes crashing down!” https://order-order.com/

   So there was a media event involving colliding egos of the rightist persuasion:

   in classic tabloid style, much is made of Trump’s walkout at the end of his interview. Did it really happen? Despite being teased in trailers for the past week, you’ll have to tune in to episode two to find out.

   https://www.smh.com.au/culture/tv-and-radio/snowflake-society-i-watched-piers-morgan-s-new-show-so-you-don-t-have-to-20220426-p5ag22.html
3. Dennis Frank 3

   27 April 2022 at 7:28 pm

   Man of the people gets out & about…

   This week I took advantage of recess and went out on the road to talk with people about our policies and principles. Crucially, I also wanted to hear what they thought – about their lives, about what needs to change, about what they need from government to help make that happen. That is because the politics of the Labour Party must come from the people it represents.

   The biggest frustration of my leadership has been Covid making it so hard to get out of Westminster more to hear from people across the country. I know the best policies and the best ideas are written with and alongside people, not handed to them by Westminster.

   That’s why since restrictions began to lift, I’ve been out and about at every opportunity. This week, we went to Sunderland, Burnley and Birmingham.

   https://labourlist.org/2022/02/the-labour-party-is-on-track-we-have-the-hunger-the-desire-and-the-ideas/
4. aj 4

   27 April 2022 at 8:04 pm

   Latest advert from Hobson's Pledge, running on YouTube and very annoying
   • Anne 4.1

     27 April 2022 at 8:13 pm

     Indeed it is. Talk about projection! They are claiming the Labour Party are hell bent on undermining democracy when everything they do and say is a pack of lies which is the hallmark of those who undermine our democratic system of government.
5. Anker 5

   27 April 2022 at 10:22 pm

   • I thought David Parker as attorney general came out against the Rotorua admin bill, which Tamati Coffey was trying to sneak through?
   • weka 5.1

     27 April 2022 at 11:13 pm

     how was he sneaking?

     Here's the AG's report (PDF)

     https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/PAP_122623/5d80125690667622a8d3c896fdb8beee9ff4b6da
     • weka 5.1.1

       27 April 2022 at 11:17 pm

       7. I note that this analysis is based only on the text of the Bill and publicly available information released by the Council and the Local Government Commission. The
       conclusion I have reached, that the Bill cannot be justified under s 5 of the Bill of
       Rights Act, is largely due to the absence of information and analysis available to
       provide justification for the limit on the right to freedom from discrimination

       This has been mentioned in the reporting I've seen, but not explained. But consider that it's discrimination to have single sex spaces, and so we can and do make provision for this. My reading isn't that the Rotorua Bill is wrong, but that the AG couldn't make any other recommendation because he lacked the information to do so. Haven’t read the whole report yet.

       /IANAL
       • Anker 5.1.1.1

         28 April 2022 at 10:26 am

         https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/rotorua-council-representation-bill-cannot-be-justified-attorney-general/FISDTUCJOZHW7LKQMWEF2IIENE/

         From the NZ Herald ” a bill that would increase Maori voting rights in Rotorua’s local elections cannot be justified and discrimates against general roll voters, the Attorney General has found”

         I used the words Tamati Coffey was trying to "sneak through" because rather than go through the committee concerned with parliament, voting etc, (I am sorry the name for the committee escapes me) he put it through the Maori Affairs select committee, allowing only two weeks for consultation, which included over the Easter period.

         I also posted about this bill before, asking Sabine if she knew about it, as she is in the Rotorua area. She said she only knew about it because of National and NZ first, so I assumed that meant that Labour hadn't in any way canvassed the locals about this bill. I think that is a reasonable assumption.

         Labour never canvassed on this proposal of co-governance. It is a significant change to how NZ runs in democracy. I think we have a right to debate these changes.

         Personally I want my vote to equal any other citizens.
         • weka 5.1.1.1.1

           28 April 2022 at 10:42 am

           I had the impression that council went through a reasonable long process including consultation for the council changes.

           The Bill is needed for those changes to be legal, but it's not the driver, that's coming from Rotorua council. Fair point about Coffey's approach.

           Personally I want my vote to equal any other citizens.

           Would you mind sharing why, in this context of Māori and Te Tiriti?
           • RedLogix 5.1.1.1.1.1

             28 April 2022 at 10:52 am

             Why would you want voting to be unequal on a skin colour basis?

             Framing the Treaty of Waitangi as a 'partnership' is how you have have arrived at this stupid outcome.

             In essence the treaty did two things – it confirmed Maori as citizens of the British Empire – and extended to the iwi chiefs who personally signed the Treaty the protections of title and legal ownership of what they regarded as their property as any other British citizens.

             There are absolutely no grounds to read the idea that the iwi chiefs were being offered a right to separate sovereignty of any kind whatsoever.
             • weka …

               28 April 2022 at 11:22 am

               If you want to talk with me about this topic, you will have to stop making shit about my argument and position.
               • RedLogix …

                 28 April 2022 at 8:07 pm

                 You are the one busy preaching to us how equal votes = tyranny of the majority which is the cause of all the ills in the world.

                 So if you don't like equal votes, one person one vote – then I can only conclude that you want equity in voting. So logically if 1 in 6 people are Maori then logically every Maori should get 6 votes for the 1 everyone else gets.

                 Or do you have something else in mind?
           • Anker 5.1.1.1.1.2

             28 April 2022 at 12:11 pm

             I don't mind sharing at all, because I wan't the debate over these changes and I don't think Labour did/does. I don't know enough about the Treaty to know if co-governance was promised, i.e. that Maori and Pakeha will have equal representation not depending on population numbers (that is my understanding of what some of this means and I am prepared to stand corrected. If this was promised in the Treaty, then this has to be honoured.

             But if not, I am not for it, for many reasons. Democracy as we know it here has always been important to me as has my vote. I am no less or no more important than anyone else.

             I really want to see Maori stats improve, health, justice, achievement et. But I don't see this is the way to achieve this. At the moment there is apparently a move to de-colonize the NZ education system and I have read articles by Professor Elizabeth Rata an a colleague of hers (Can't link provided below). They are saying that there are voices against improving literacy skills, because literacy is part of colonization. I think Molly has posted stuff on here about the school science curriculum issues.

             I am concerned about applying any ideological approaches to policy e.g Critical Race Theory and Gender Ideology. These are theoretical hypothesis, not constructive ways forward. I am all for evidence based policies.

             I say this within the context of my husband being Maori and having Maori step children. For example my experience of my husband health care needs is that he gets special access to services due to being Maori e.g he wasamongst the first to get vacinnated (at the local marae). I am not objecting to this prioritzation, this is just my experienc.

             https://theplatform.kiwi/opinions/the-bigotry-of-low-expectations-maori-literacy

             Just found the link re Maori literacy and de-colonization
             • weka …

               28 April 2022 at 12:44 pm

               Te Tiriti was signed in 1840. Māori men got the vote in 1867. All men in 1879. All women in 1893. At points voting was tied to land ownership (and there's a whole thing there about disenfranchising Māori women and forcing Māori to adopt British ideas about sex and gender roles).

               https://teara.govt.nz/en/voting-rights

               So no, Te Tiriti isn't about voting. There are two versions. International law generally says that the version in the indigenous language should prevail (for what I hope are obvious reasons).

               From wikipedia,

               The text of the treaty includes a preamble and three articles. It is bilingual, with the Māori text translated in the context of the time from the English.

               • Article one of the Māori text grants governance rights to the Crown while the English text cedes "all rights and powers of sovereignty" to the Crown.
               • Article two of the Māori text establishes that Māori will retain full chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures while the English text establishes the continued ownership of the Māori over their lands and establishes the exclusive right of pre-emption of the Crown.
               • Article three gives Māori people full rights and protections as British subjects.

               As some words in the English treaty did not translate directly into the written Māori language of the time, the Māori text is not a literal translation of the English text, particularly in relation to the meaning of having and ceding sovereignty.[8][9] These differences created disagreements in the decades following the signing, eventually contributing to the New Zealand Wars of 1845 to 1872 and continuing through to the Treaty of Waitangi settlements starting in the early 1990s.

               https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi

               To make sense of that one has to listen to what Māori scholars, historians and activists say about it and the meaning.

               It also needs to be read alongside He Whakaputanga (1835) if we want to understand what Māori were thinking and wanting at that time.

               https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/declaration-of-independence-taming-the-frontier

               My own position is that both those documents gives us a framework for discussion, but really the underlying principle is that Māori had their land and resources stolen by pioneers and colonisation forces, and they have been trying ever since to get that remedied. The Treaty gives non-Māori a way of being in New Zealand with honour and meaning, otherwise we're the descendents of bullies and the people with the biggest stick.

               My own people arrived owing their passage from Scotland in the 1860s and within a short time they were land owners and within a generation building wealth while Māori were losing so much. There's a whole history there about the Clearances and who arrived here and how and why. I don't think my people were bullies or evil, they clearly were trying to improve their lives. They obviously benefited hugely from being part of the society that had the biggest stick. I want to do right by them and the peoples they displaced. Both of us.

               Co-governance to me means two parties coming together and figuring out how to manage things. I see so many benefits to Pākehā society from this, not least of which is improvement in our inherited form of democracy. As we can see, opov/majority rules has brought us poverty and worse for Māori, climate crisis, housing crisis, general poverty, ecological destruction. I see no way out of that in the current system. Neoliberalism is cemented in, we have generations of people socialised into voting out of self interest and individualism, they will never vote to solve the major problems that we have and we simply do not have time in regards to climate and ecology.

               What I see in this debate is people looking at majority rules and thinking that Māori will have more say proportionally. I have to wonder if the objection is founded in an intuitive grasp of just how unfair our current system is. We can want improvements for Māori all we want, but we're not going to get them while Pākehā have such a majority. Eventually there will be more Polynesian people in NZ than Pākehā, but that's not going to happen for a few decades and we need change now.

               Whereas I see the value in consensus, in participatory democracy, in relational rather than transactional politics, in true, participatory consultation rather the poor forms we use now, in Māori cultural tools around debate and working through problems without having to resort to majority rules. I get the general objection on principle, but I'm not seeing the rationales laid out in comparison to what we could have instead.
               • weka …

                 28 April 2022 at 12:45 pm

                 Opov/majority rules is a Western structure we inherited. Why are we not considering there are other systems equally as good, or even better? Is this a lack of knowledge? Lack of imagination?
                 • Drowsy M. Kram …

                   28 April 2022 at 1:05 pm

                   Is this a lack of knowledge? Lack of imagination?

                   Fear of change? I've been making an effort to rid myself of irrational fears, but some of them are deeply ingrained so it's a slow process.
                   • weka …

                     28 April 2022 at 1:34 pm

                     or at least be able to explain what the fears are would be a start. I see people saying they don't like it, but not really why.
                   • Anker …

                     28 April 2022 at 6:01 pm

                     I have a lot of fears about what is happening in NZ . My fears are about not following science are pretty strong. The Listener 7 episode has, among other things made me very wary of people with ideological agendas.

                     And I am very wary about this Govt bringing in legislation in an underhand way, without people being fully informed, when there is evidence people don't support it (e.g a vote compass poll about gender self ID just before last election showed the majority didn't support it).
                   • Drowsy M. Kram …

                     28 April 2022 at 6:52 pm

                     I have a lot of fears about what is happening in NZ.

                     Same, but there have been (at least a few) instances of government/parliament-sponsored changes for the better in the face of majority public disapproval. Sue Bradford's 2005 private member’s 'anti-smacking bill' springs to mind – parliament even resisted a strongly-supported citizens initiated referendum aimed at repeal.

                     While that aspirational legislation may not have resulted in all the benefits hoped for, neither have most of the fears of those opposed been realised.
                 • Anker …

                   28 April 2022 at 5:55 pm

                   I am not entirely against a change to how our democracy works, but there needs to be a lot of discussion and transparency about this. To date IMO Labour hasn't done this (they have done the opposite). It was not part of their policy platform and as a member of the party, I was not asked about this nor was it a question in one of the numerous surveys they sent out to members which I dutifully filled out………Jacinda very early in her term as PM said we need to take people with us on change. Surely this must apply to this issue.

                   I have thought a lot today about my reaction to co-governance. I was brought up by a very political mother and I was told from a very early age that voting was my duty and that I must always vote (I always have). My vote really matters to me. I don't take it for granted as part of my early education was about the suffergettes and how NZ was the first country to allow women to vote. I would need very good reason to allow my vote to be diluted in its worth.

                   I am not sure that we will ever compensate Maori for the loss of their land, unless we give them ownership of the whole country. This would be hugely disrupted for everyone and a radical departure from our current arrangements. I know Treaty settlements don't really cut it. I think it has made the Maori elite better off. My husband co-owns small pockets of land with his whanau, that is not really that useful to him. He also gets a a Kaumatua allowance from his tribe.

                   Is the purpose of making changes to governance because people think this will significantly change things for Maori? If so how? Or is it more just a symbolic gesture to apologise for what happened. What would Maori do, that isn't already being done for Maori?
               • Anker …

                 28 April 2022 at 5:54 pm

                 I am not entirely against a change to how our democracy works, but there needs to be a lot of discussion and transparency about this. To date IMO Labour hasn't done this (they have done the opposite). It was not part of their policy platform and as a member of the party, I was not asked about this nor was it a question in one of the numerous surveys they sent out to members which I dutifully filled out………Jacinda very early in her term as PM said we need to take people with us on change. Surely this must apply to this issue.

                 I have thought a lot today about my reaction to co-governance. I was brought up by a very political mother and I was told from a very early age that voting was my duty and that I must always vote (I always have). My vote really matters to me. I don't take it for granted as part of my early education was about the suffergettes and how NZ was the first country to allow women to vote. I would need very good reason to allow my vote to be diluted in its worth.

                 I am not sure that we will ever compensate Maori for the loss of their land, unless we give them ownership of the whole country. This would be hugely disrupted for everyone and a radical departure from our current arrangements. I know Treaty settlements don't really cut it. I think it has made the Maori elite better off. My husband co-owns small pockets of land with his whanau, that is not really that useful to him. He also gets a a Kaumatua allowance from his tribe.

                 Is the purpose of making changes to governance because people think this will significantly change things for Maori? If so how? Or is it more just a symbolic gesture to apologise for what happened. What would Maori do, that isn't already being done for Maori?
   • Patricia Bremner 5.2

     28 April 2022 at 5:05 am

     Tamati as a local MP was asked to present the Bill by the Council. End of.
     • Anker 5.2.1

       28 April 2022 at 10:33 am

       Patricia. Tamati is not the local MP for Rotorua. Despite Labour's landslide in 2020, Coffey lost his seat. The only sitting Labour MP to do so. He is a list MP>

       I also posted further background to the Bill in my reply to Weka above.
       • Anne 5.2.1.1

         28 April 2022 at 11:17 am

         He may not be the electorate MP, but he is a local list MP in Rotorua and, as such, has an official office in that electorate. This is the practice in many electorates where there is/are list MPs. Their status also gives them the right to act on matters of importance within the electorate.
         • Anker 5.2.1.1.1

           28 April 2022 at 11:54 am

           Fair point Anne
6. Temp ORary 6

   27 April 2022 at 10:41 pm

   Auē! He kauae tehe. Kia kaha Ngāpuhi hine.

   A Havelock North mother who was told her moko kauae scared children in a playground, wants to meet with the women who insulted her…

   "They asked me if I could cover my chin, my moko kauae, with my mask, because I was 'scaring the children'. And if not, [they said] then leave. They didn't say please. They just asked me to leave."

   She ignored the comments but felt "hurt and rage".

   "I was boiling on the inside. I had to compose myself and hold my mana."

   Scott was sitting with her six-month-old and her three elder tamariki were playing.

   She cried when she got home, and said a karakia.

   Scott had felt uncomfortable about racial inequality in Hawke's Bay before but "never thought the race card would be slapped like that".

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/465952/women-who-insulted-moko-kauae-told-to-apologise

   To be clear; this was not just an insult against one person, but all Ngāpuhi. And Ngāti Kahungunu (who are tangata whenua ki Heretaunga) for that matter.
   • Patricia Bremner 6.1

     28 April 2022 at 5:07 am

     It was extremely ignorant and rude, and sad.
   • Descendant Of Smith 6.2

     28 April 2022 at 11:31 am

     In actual fact it was the children's own parents scaring the children through prejudice and ignorance.
7. Shanreagh 7

   28 April 2022 at 8:13 am

   Strange how things move. Brought up in a small Maori dominated community and the people we saw often and who we knew would help small children if we were lost or needed comforting were the Maori Wardens and the Nannies with ta Moko, also shop keepers etc.

   What must go on in the home life of those who insulted this mother doesn’t bear thinking about.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS