He isn’t a racist because his ex wife is from Singapore

Written By: - Date published: 9:08 am, September 30th, 2016 - 139 comments
Categories: don brash, Maori seats, MMP, national, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: ,

Group of people holding Australian flag

Hobson’s Pledge (or is that choice) has emerged.  Stock photographs aside they appear to comprise older folk mostly wealthy white males who are upset at the thought that Maori should also enjoy privilege.  White privilege yes, black privilege no.

They bring out the same old tired arguments from the past few decades.  They seem to think that Maori somehow enjoy privilege the rest of us, especially rich old white males, do not.

So how is that privilege looking?

Well Maori rates of home ownership is plunging faster than that of Pakeha.  Maori rates of poverty are approximately twice that of Pakeha.  Maori account for half of all people in prison despite only constituting 15% of the population.  And in 2013 life expectancy at birth for Pakeha was 7 years greater than that of Maori.  In statistic after statistic Maori are doing worse than Pakeha.

So putting to one side from home ownership, poverty rates, incarceration rates and life expectancy in what areas does Hobson’s Pledge think that Maori enjoy privilege?

Well they want to remove any RMA requirement to consult with Maori, they want to get rid of Maori electorates and they want to take away any say that Maori have in water allocation.

They trot out a bunch of superficial cliches such as there should be equality under the law, that Maori ceded sovereignty to the Crown, and that the Treaty of Waitangi did not create a partnership nor did it create any principles.

My first response to them is they should read up about the Treaty and understand what it contained.  Article one ceded Kawanatanga or governance to the Crown.  Article two guaranteed to Maori Tino Rangatiratanga of their lands villages and other Taonga.  If Maori were to have ceded sovereignty then the phrases should have been transposed.  But then Maori would not have signed because it is clear from the history of the time that they wanted to retain sovereignty.

My second response to Hobson’s Pledge is to read up about the history of the breaches of the Treaty.  There are many, many sad and depressing cases and the “Treaty Grievance History” actually involves the Crown analysing the history, identifying the breach, understanding the loss and trying to repair modestly the damage in case after case.

One case involves Ngati Whatua.  I previously wrote this very brief summary of their treatment which glosses over the history but gives a sense of what has happened.

And if you really want to get upset then a brief reading of the history of Okahu Bay will achieve this as long as you are human.  The original problem was that the Maori Land Court awarded the Bastion Point land to 13 individuals, despite there being a hapu of over 100 that owned the land.  Tribal control of the land was lost.  Then to really kick things off the Government took land at Okahu Bay and built a sewer pipe across the beach in front of the Ngati Whatua village. It discharged raw sewage from Auckland into the bay, which at that time was the only access to the papakainga. The sewage outfall was unhygienic and highly offensive, it polluted the hapu’s shellfish beds, and it turned the village into a swamp in heavy rain.  Many people left the village and the hapu broke up.

The equivalent situation would be if the authorities said that Peter Shirtcliffe’s land holdings actually belonged to someone else and let them sell the land and keep the profits.  Imagine what the response would be.

As for the Maori electorates I believe they fulfill an important role.  They maintain representation and diversity and recognise Maori’s special status in Aotearoa New Zealand.  In an MMP situation they do not distort the democratic will.  It is not as if the electorates are controlled by puppet parties whose only role is to skewer proportionality to the right.

And water?  The treaty did preserve to Maori unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and their Taonga.  And water is clearly a Taonga.

I said this a couple of years ago and it seems just as relevant now.  Lets get real here.  We are going to have an intense negative debate about uppity Maori seeking privilege and the loudest voices against them will be the defenders of existing privilege.  When you get to understand what is going on the problem is not that there may be privilege, just that there may be competition.

https://twitter.com/bootstheory/status/781575641934073856

139 comments on “He isn’t a racist because his ex wife is from Singapore ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Hanswurst 1
    30 September 2016 at 9:26 am

    Article one ceded Kawatanga or governance to the Crown.

    “Kawanatanga”, if I’m not very much mistaken…. unless you actually intend to say that they ceded either acidity or governance to the crown.

    [Thanks now fixed – MS]

  2. Lanthanide 2
    30 September 2016 at 9:28 am

    In 2008, National campaigned to abolish the Maori electorates.

    Look where they are now.

    • Chris 2.1
      30 September 2016 at 10:57 am

      And it was still their policy for some time after that, too, so they were on the one hand relying on the Maori Party for support, and on the other saying “it’s our policy to destroy your party”.

      • Colville 2.1.1
        30 September 2016 at 12:51 pm

        You think the MP needs a racist leg up to be successful in parliament?

        There are approx 400 000 Maori voters, that is enough to elect approx 20 MPs without racist help.

  3. Cinny 3
    30 September 2016 at 9:32 am

    Distraction from the latest polls?

  4. save nz 4
    30 September 2016 at 9:33 am

    Great points. Does any one else think that the Natz are trying to distract with the tried but true ‘race’ debate to try to woo votes? Actually seems to work for them by distracting from the terrible job they are doing and scandals and like race and property is something that people have strong views on. Also takes away from the sale of our country and assets offshore and our record immigration by National. Apparently even seats that vote for Labour MP’s prefer to give their party vote to National which says a lot about changing demographics.

    I guess National strategy is:
    Distract by drumming up usual discontent against and then play it in order..
    Single parents and dole bludgers
    Privileged Maori (have to use surrogate, Brash as don’t want to upset the Maori party)
    Tough on crime
    Have to repeal RMA as we not enough houses to help the poor and too much red tape when the Spencer family want to merge 16 sections for their McMansion and they want to allocate water rights sarc …

    Hope Labour don’t rush in and enter that fray – because by doing so they actually look like they want to give more to Maori, welfare recipients and criminals for those still simple minded (many) voters who fall for that every time…

    It’s about time the Maori party got some guts and tackled the Natz in the media to fight their corner – they are their trusted partner after all.

    • Cinny 4.1
      30 September 2016 at 10:04 am

      “Hope Labour don’t rush in and enter that fray – because by doing so they actually look like they want to give more to Maori, welfare recipients and criminals for those still simple minded (many) voters who fall for that every time…

      It’s about time the Maori party got some guts and tackled the Natz in the media to fight their corner – they are their trusted partner after all.”

      a thousand times YES.

    • marty mars 4.2
      30 September 2016 at 12:01 pm

      racists will be racists and they believe what they want – whatever is said they will turn it into evidence for their beliefs.

      “Hope Labour don’t rush in and enter that fray – because by doing so they actually look like they want to give more to Maori, welfare recipients and criminals for those still simple minded (many) voters who fall for that every time…”

      Labour should stand up for their principles and push this shit into the dirt. If not, then the racists will say – “see labour agree otherwise they would say they disagree”

      There is no substitute for courage and conviction when this stuff is raised. Especially when labour supporters crow on about the Māori seats won by labour and their lovely inclusive caucus – time to front up labour – be brave, you never know you might get some votes out of it and at the least it will go some way to disproving the “they don’t give a fuck” thinking some have about you.

      • save nz 4.2.1
        30 September 2016 at 1:33 pm

        @Marty mars The problem by entering the fray is that for many lefties Labour seems to not do enough for welfare recipients, Maori and criminals and there are other partners with Labour they could vote for.

        However it can look like Labour only cares about Maori, criminals and welfare for middle NZ, business owners and so forth. I’m not commenting on real Labour policy, rather the manipulation of perceptions in post truth politics.

        Labour need to focus on bigger things and not become a soundbyte for click bait issues led by someone who isn’t even in parliament.

        It should be straight to the Maori party to fight it out race relations. If they are getting such a bad deal for Maori for example maybe they need to rethink their partnership with National. Or the race relations for National. Let them respond to Brash.

        So by entering the fray, Labour they gain nothing and it becomes a distraction for what news middle NZ should be focusing on, which is terrible National policy that does little for anyone apart from cronys, polluters and the super rich.

        • marty mars 4.2.1.1
          30 September 2016 at 2:03 pm

          I hear but disagree with you. If we allow them to set the agenda we have lost already. And if we allow them to run over groups of people while we stand and watch then we might as well be driving the steamroller.

          • pat 4.2.1.1.1
            30 September 2016 at 8:32 pm

            its an attempted distraction….no need to play their game…..let it sink into oblivion where it belongs

          • save nz 4.2.1.1.2
            1 October 2016 at 9:17 am

            @Marty Mars – the agenda is already set via Nationals stronghold on MSM where some out of context soundbite from Labour will be put out with some commentator like Hooton or analysing it.

            Let the Maori party have their say, they are bosom buddies with the Natz, they represent out of proportion Maori in prisons etc. How they allowed the Natz to steal the prisoners votes I don’t know. Now this.

            This is a distraction from National. If you ignore someone like Brash they just go away in MSM.

            • Leftie 4.2.1.1.2.1
              2 October 2016 at 6:50 am

              “Let the Maori party have their say, they are bosom buddies with the Natz, they represent out of proportion Maori in prisons etc. How they allowed the Natz to steal the prisoners votes I don’t know. Now this.”

              Well said Save NZ, But like Orewa, I think msm will push this, because it is a distraction from National.

          • Leftie 4.2.1.1.3
            2 October 2016 at 6:45 am

            But you want Labour to be brave and front up, but NOT the Maori party Marty Mars?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.2
          30 September 2016 at 6:49 pm

          the fray

          When did left wing values desert the least advantaged? Fuck that.

          • Colonial Viper 4.2.1.2.1
            30 September 2016 at 7:11 pm

            August 1987, when left leaning Kiwis all decided to return the Rogernomics Labour Government to power.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.2.1.1
              30 September 2016 at 7:37 pm

              Your ongoing tanty is not an insight into Left wing values. Please fuck off.

              • North …
                30 September 2016 at 9:16 pm

                Delicious OAB @ 4.2.1.2.1.1, simply delicious !

                CV the wannabe emblem of ‘leftiness’ who hurls ugly measures of bitter, bullying bluster into simply everything.

                The trading of scone recipes he’d twist into harping about how he’s been so, so wronged. Prepare for some loud love coming your way Ton Prash !

            • millsy 4.2.1.2.1.2
              1 October 2016 at 2:35 pm

              Not really as simple as that.

              Our social welfare, health, and education system were more or less intact in 1987. As far as the public were concerned, the profits that the SOE’s would make would go towards our social services. Pensions and benefits were still pretty generous, and easier to get, Ruth’s austerity being in the future. If you got laid off, you got half decent redundancy pay, and the benefit was able to cover your living costs. If you lost your job in 1987, it wasnt the end of the world.

              Plus Ruth Richardson was going on about school vouchers and privatisation.

          • save nz 4.2.1.2.2
            1 October 2016 at 9:11 am

            @OAB – When they failed to get in power for 9 years Labour deserted the least advantaged.

      • Leftie 4.2.2
        2 October 2016 at 6:42 am

        Why just Labour Marty Mars? Shouldn’t the MAORI PARTY stand up for their principles and push this shit into the dirt? Isn’t time the Maori party walked the talk, got brave and fronted up? Like you said “There is no substitute for courage and conviction when this stuff is raised.”

        BTW it’s a fact that Labour hold 6 of the 7 Maori seats. Why deny a fact?

        • marty mars 4.2.2.1
          2 October 2016 at 7:53 am

          Look bub I am not interested in having some big comment-off with you. In fact you can have as many last words as you like.

          In regards to the Māori Party they will do what they want. They, as individuals and collectively, have been fighting this shit all their lives – they are Māori get it?

          Labour are the largest party straddling the centre and leaning left – leadership is the price they pay for that privilege – that’s all I’m saying.

          and before you came along the conversation was decent and composed – I hope it stays that way – probably will because I’ll not reply to you again – see my response to red below – you are another who won’t listen.

          • Leftie 4.2.2.1.1
            2 October 2016 at 3:49 pm

            The debate still remains “decent” as you put it. I didn’t post anything untoward, and abusive Marty Mars, using your own logic it was a reasonable question to ask. Labour have spoken out, and Louise Wall was positively brilliant in challenging Don Brash, but being the “largest party straddling the centre and leaning left the second largest party” is neither here nor there in this instance, because as Save NZ pointed out, the Maori party are “bosom buddies with the Natz” and one would have thought, particularly after the flip flop over Helen Clark, this is the very issue the Maori party could effectively sink their teeth into.

            • marty mars 4.2.2.1.1.1
              2 October 2016 at 4:54 pm

              “but being the “largest party straddling the centre and leaning left the second largest party” is neither here nor there in this instance,”

              “neither here nor there in this instance” – why do you think that? Surely you would want them to show leadership (might get them some votes and they’d be seen as supporting their people) – as they have done – do you want labour to remain silent at injustice, racism, and stupidity? jeepers you surprise me with that one – I suppose you are very disappointed in them for not remaining silent. What else do you want them to shut up about – poverty, the wealth gap, the housing crisis??? Or is it just Māori issues?

              “In regards to the Māori Party they will do what they want. They, as individuals and collectively, have been fighting this shit all their lives – they are Māori get it?”

              Don’t you understand that couple of sentences?

              • Leftie …
                2 October 2016 at 5:26 pm

                Labour are showing leadership and haven’t remained silent on the issues you have referred to. You were trying to put it back on Labour as an excuse. Don’t the Maori party, that are currently sitting at the table, have to show leadership too? particularly on matters of racism? Do YOU get THAT Marty Mars? If any political party should be vocal the most about Brash’s relaunch of his old racist campaign, one would have thought, it would be the Maori Party.

                • marty mars …
                  2 October 2016 at 5:31 pm

                  so you’re agreeing with me?

                  what’s your beef then

                  “If any political party should be vocal the most about Brash’s relaunch of his old racist campaign, one would have thought, it would be the Maori Party.”

                  oh I see – not Māori bashing but rather Māori Party bashing

                  I’ve explained it, sorry if you can’t understand it.

                  • Leftie …
                    2 October 2016 at 7:16 pm

                    Well that’s contradictory, and as I have pointed out to you on a number of occasions, it’s not about bashing Maori, it’s about National’s Maori party and highlighting a valid point is not “bashing” either. Kind of strange that YOU want everyone else to “stand up for their principles and push this shit into the dirt” except for the Maori party. You said it yourself, as individuals the Maori party members have been fighting racism all their lives, so collectively as the Maori party, that sits at the govt’s table, it stands to reason that they would be vocal the most about Brash’s relaunch of his old racist campaign, so one would have thought. What’s so hard for you that you cannot understand that?

                    • marty mars …
                      2 October 2016 at 7:29 pm

                      you putting the bash into me now?

                      The Māori Party don’t have to say “how high sir” just cos you say, “jump”.

                      About time non-Māori sat their own people down and learned them rather than expecting Māori to always do it.

                      It really isn’t that hard to follow unless you have a Māori Party hating vibe going – do you? Can you say any positive thing about the Māori Party? Can you? eh? Can you?

                    • Leftie …
                      2 October 2016 at 7:50 pm

                      I do understand, and I too have explained. I am not bashing you, it’s a fair and reasonable point that has been raised in this debate. You do not want to address that, that’s fine.

                    • Chris …
                      2 October 2016 at 8:12 pm

                      Good to see you’ve relegated Leftie to sport. He can provide you with hours and hours of fun whenever you want it, and then when you’re sick of it you just stop, and then when you’re ready to go again you just wind him up and away he goes. Check this out:

                      Hey Leftie, remind us again why you think Labour voting with Key and the nats beneficiary bashing legislation in 2014 was a good thing? You gave some excuse why Labour had to do it but I couldn’t quite follow what you were saying because whatever the reasons you gave it still meant that your Labour Party voted for legislation that had just one objective which was to fuck the poor over. You agreed with this and that it needed to happen so does that mean we should really be referring to you as Rightie?

                    • Leftie …
                      2 October 2016 at 8:12 pm

                      I see you have changed you comment. Sounds like excuses there. It’s no secret that I am no supporter of National’s Maori party, and have given reasons in other comments in previous threads. I have often said that I do not trust the Maori party, and I would not be the only person that feels that way.
                      Of course the Maori party don’t have to say anything that they don’t want, it’s just that one would have thought when it came to racism, the Maori party would have been the most vocal of them all against it, that’s all.

                      Wouldn’t it be better that Maori led the way so non Maori learnt from them?

                    • Leftie …
                      2 October 2016 at 8:17 pm

                      Been through that with you extensively. I didn’t agree and you’re trolling again Chris. Ask the Labour Party, they are the best ones to ask.

                    • marty mars …
                      2 October 2016 at 8:26 pm

                      One positive thing about them – can you do it?

                      This racism is so blatant and horrible that non-Māori definitely don’t need Māori leading them. And many comments around this blog and others show that there are many many fine people who are fully able to determine their own values and moral compass’s and can state clearly what they think. They’ve done it on this thread.

                    • Chris …
                      2 October 2016 at 8:31 pm

                      So if Labour decides to take a right-wing stance on an issue then it’s a no go zone for you and all concerns should be taken up the Labour Party? You are art.

                      What about if Labour needed the Mp’s support to form a government in 2017? What’s your advice there?

                    • Leftie …
                      2 October 2016 at 8:49 pm

                      Would have thought my response was crystal clear Marty Mars. And there are some on this thread that can’t think of anything positive about the Maori Party either.

                      My point was what’s wrong in Maori being influential in leading the way against racism, because unfortunately, there are many more people that lack values and a moral compass, National and the likes of Don Brash, that has gained traction with this kind of polarizing filth in the past, is proof of that.

                    • marty mars …
                      2 October 2016 at 9:03 pm

                      So you can’t say ONE positive thing about the Māori Party, not one. From 7 July 2004 to now is 12 fucken years and you can’t think of ONE positive over 12 years???

                      You are a Māori Party basher, a shallow thinker and a bigot.

                    • Chris …
                      2 October 2016 at 9:14 pm

                      “And there are some on this thread that can’t think of anything positive about the Maori Party either.”

                      Your view of the Mp, Leftie-boy, is flawed because you restrict your analysis (if you can call it that) to their naive and sell-out behavour. You go no deeper than that. But that’s par for the course for you, Leftie-boy, because you’re a one-dimensional Labour shill. But please don’t ever change, because that’s what makes you fun.

                    • Leftie …
                      2 October 2016 at 9:31 pm

                      Why are you trying to force me to say something positive about the Maori party when I have already made my views clear Marty Mars? I have also pointed out that there are some on this thread who have nothing positive to say about the Maori party either.

                      Really, I don’t think you are in a position to call me a shallow thinker and a bigot, that’s a bit hypocritical of you.

                    • marty mars …
                      2 October 2016 at 10:24 pm

                      yeah good point lofty – you’re not brainy enough to be shallow

                    • leftie …
                      2 October 2016 at 11:11 pm

                      That pointless abuse is weak and pathetic, Marty Mars.

                    • Chris …
                      2 October 2016 at 11:26 pm

                      Hey, hey, lofty-boy! You’re beautiful.

    • Jan Rivers 4.3
      2 October 2016 at 9:14 pm

      No-one has mentioned this aspect of the distraction. On 21 September Sir Geoffrey Palmer launched “A Constitution for Aotearoa New Zealand. http://constitutionaotearoa.org.nz/news/speeches/book-launch-speech-geoffrey-palmer/. An interesting co-incidence surely and one which could serve to make that that more thoughtful and helpful conversation less visible than it otherwise would be. Did Sir Geoffrey’s book get leading coverage across the media 10 days ago? Hmmh!

      For me the best antidote to the kind of ugly racism that Hobson’s Pledge zealots could engender is to know and to be visible with the absolute certainty, that a New Zealand where Māori people would flourish is a country where, as Pākehā, we would flourish too. That relates to recognition and honouring of the treaty, to constitutional arrangements that provide for a strong and effective Māori voice in all aspects of the democratic and representative arrangements as well as to a public approach that is full and generous spirited as to all aspects of what it means to belong in a country with an indigenous population.

      I don’t agree that the Māori Party have to lead on this issue as some people here have commented and also that the discussion here on the “optics” and triangulation options for Labour on this issue is best left to them. We have the privilege of discussing what kind of country we want to live in – far more powerful than considering how that conversation will play with the media.

  6. irascible 6
    30 September 2016 at 9:35 am

    Brash and his cronies get a lot of coverage from a South Auckland “magazine” called e-local. This letterboxed magazine gives considerable space to the anti-Maori commentaries favoured by its editorial staff.

  7. RedLogix 7
    30 September 2016 at 10:56 am

    Article one ceded Kawanatanga or governance to the Crown. Article two guaranteed to Maori Tino Rangatiratanga of their lands villages and other Taonga. If Maori were to have ceded sovereignty then the phrases should have been transposed. But then Maori would not have signed because it is clear from the history of the time that they wanted to retain sovereignty.

    Can you please enlarge on this para mickey?

    Somewhere along the lines I’m unclear on how you are using these words, because to me if you ceded governance, you have also ceded sovereignty.

    The question of protecting personal and property rights is a related matter, but not quite the same thing. I can definitely see how the the rangatira who signed the ToW would have wanted to maintain their mana, taonga and tapu status. That is plain.

    But equally the principle effect of the ToW was for Maori to effectively become citizens of the Crown, meaning at the time, the British Empire. Naturally this sets up a tension; on the one hand the rangatira clearly intended to retain the status, power and privilege their pre-ToW whakapapa and leadership bestowed upon them … while at the same time they got to enjoy the legal status and protection of being citizens of the major global super power of the age.

    (This citizenship being no small thing, given that the British Crown had outlawed slavery in 1833. And you only have to look to the Aboriginal people, who completely lacked such status, to see even wider and more appalling consequences.)

    Over the years I’ve read and encountered many shades of interpretation on this question; ranging from those who insist the iwi never ceded sovereignty, remain separate entities, equal partners with the Crown, with their own indigenous, independent right to governance and property. Right through to those who would argue that Maori are citizens and subjects of the NZ Crown, equally as much as any other person in this nation.

    And a lot of confusing shades in between. Most of which comes down to what is meant by these slippery words ‘sovereignty’ and ‘governance’.

    • marty mars 7.1
      30 September 2016 at 11:53 am

      My question to you red is why?

      You know the meaning and use of the words in english and Māori within the Treaty are the issue – specifically the meaning of those words – you know this – I’ve done university courses on this, the debate around the Treaty rests with this, brash and his ill-tempered racist mates use this, 1law4all poke at this – there are millions of words and opinions on this – so why, why are you asking this?

      Isn’t it a distraction from brash and why would you want that?

      ffs what are you trying to achieve?

      • RedLogix 7.1.1
        30 September 2016 at 12:46 pm

        what are you trying to achieve?

        A clear idea of what is meant by the words ‘sovereign’ and ‘governance’ in the context of the OP. As you say, there have been millions of words expended on this … and as you also know … getting to clarity still eludes us.

        I do understand that Brash’s one sovereign Crown law for all approach, that erases the unique Maori relationship with Aoteoroa, is narrow and deeply unsatisfying. Equally I think you have to recognise the claim at the other extreme that iwi remain independent sovereign entities, separate to the Crown with their own rights to governance, is also troubling to many New Zealanders.

        Maybe you would care to express your view on their meaning.

        • marty mars 7.1.1.1
          30 September 2016 at 12:57 pm

          waste. of. time.

          go and do your own HONEST research mate ffs you are as bad a broken record as brash – cut from the same cloth?

          • Matty WilderDobbs 7.1.1.1.1
            30 September 2016 at 6:06 pm

            +1 !!!!!!!!!!!
            FFS @red! (especially the idea that if you’ve ceded governance, you’ve ceded sovereignty)
            If that were true, ‘at this point in time-going forward-to coin a phrase-so to speak- es a metta o’ fek-ekshully)’, Nu Zull would be the 52nd state.
            Get some learnings

          • Gosman 7.1.1.1.2
            1 October 2016 at 6:06 am

            Why is the discussion a waste if time when it us an important matter impacting all NZ? Why can’t you simply articulate your interpretation so the rest of us can understand your position?

        • simbit 7.1.1.2
          2 October 2016 at 7:47 am

          I’m also more comfortable with a monolingual debate. But it wasn’t a monolingual Treaty…

      • George Hendry 7.1.2
        30 September 2016 at 2:34 pm

        Tena tatou katoa i runga i te kaupapa kauhaungia nei 🙂

        Marty and RL, I see sincerity in your viewpoints, Can agreement be reached?

        Kawanatanga, a noun-formed transliteration for governance, was a foreign term initially poorly understood by Maori, better understood later once they realised what it was to deny them, an ongoing denial still manifest in the statistical inequities and inequalitiies MS cites.

        Had the term arikitanga been used instead it would have given a rather too clear idea of what was intended by kawanatanga, and would have been unlikely to have been signed away, or even. being hereditary, culturally impossible to sign away.

        Rangatiratanga, executive power, not hereditary but acknowledged on merit, would for many rangatira have been what decided them in support, but…

        # only after considerable debate (what did/might that other word even mean?)

        # assisted by the partial mistranslation between the English and Maori versions, which cannot have been accidental, and of which many fluent Maori speakers of English would have been aware. (Why did so many refuse to sign, and what was the ‘crown’ to end up doing / abetting doing to them that it wouldn’t stoop to doing to those who did sign?)

        Could Maori knowingly have agreed to “Sign this treaty and you won’t get as badly treated as the Aborigines. Surely that’s got to be an advantage…” ? And was it that signing, rather than eg the Maori warrior code, that led to their not being treated as badly as aborigines? (But no way well, as is shown not only by statistics but by how many would understand/not feel affronted if I put this piece entirely in Maori.)

        Clearly (?!!) Maori who signed did not cede rangatiratanga (those who didn’t sign ceded nothing, though it kind of didn’t turn out like that).

        However, RL 🙂 , though they may have cede sovereignty (arikitanga) I believe it can’t cogently be argued that they did it knowingly, given the smoke and mirrors of the time, what it was disguised as, and to get the most good out of a deal they knew was only going to get worse with time.

        Were they to have signed in that spirit it would have been ceding sovereignty at implied gunpoint, which leaves the colonists looking no better.

        OR, were their rangatira acting on their behalf or seduced by overseas interests – was there treasonish work being done? (That word merits a spellcheck underlining, like every Maori word I have used in this monolingual spellchecker.)

        Never mind what the self-interested headline-owning wealthy hypocrites said and always have said. Soon, when the rangatira in the Beehive has finished signing away our tino rangatiratanga and arikitanga to the new corporate colonists courtesy (!) of TPPA, we will all know what it’s like and be able to agree again.

        Kia tau tatou i roto i te aroha o te takata ki te takata.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2
      30 September 2016 at 11:56 am

      …to me if you ceded governance, you have also ceded sovereignty….

      So Pontius Pilate was sovereign over Judea? Um no, because the words have different meanings. Perhaps a dictionary might help you clear up your confusion.

      • RedLogix 7.2.1
        30 September 2016 at 12:16 pm

        To be clear, I grew up with the idea that sovereignty is single, undivided and rests with the Crown. And from this flows governance over all who are it’s citizens. The two are inseparable in this sense. So yes in terms of ultimate governance Pontius Pilate was indeed the sovereign of Judea. Even the Pharisees required his permission to legally crucify Christ, though no doubt that irked them.

        But there is another tack … how comfortable are we with the notion of ‘sovereign citizen’? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement

        It seems these people take your definition of sovereignty to another conclusion, disavow the governance of the state, and argue for the dismantling of the Crown altogether. Which is another quite different meaning of the word sovereign is it not?

        • marty mars 7.2.1.1
          30 September 2016 at 12:44 pm

          sounds like 1law4all bullshit to me

          I’ve seen you do this for years from the rubbish with lew on through. You haven’t changed your tune 1 iota. Waste of time you are red – I’m glad you are in oz not standing beside brash in his poster (well I’m assuming you aren’t but who knows eh)

          • RedLogix 7.2.1.1.1
            30 September 2016 at 1:02 pm

            As so often in the past, you resort to anger and insults almost immediately. Sad because over the years I’ve always hoped we could connect better than this.

            Here is my observation for the moment marty, then I’m off to work and I’ll leave you alone. Over all these years you have frequently implied your views are with anger, contempt and insults heaped on anyone you disagree with, but rarely in my memory do you explicitly state what your opinion actually is.

            You make yourself a small target so as to avoid authentic engagement. You get to indulge in a little social bullying and collect a few +1’s from your in-group, and I’m sure you get some pleasure from it. But honest debate … it’s not.

            Instead you make take an assumption of moral superiority, refuse to stoop to defending your view, justifying yourself, or even just having an interesting conversation exploring some ideas.

            You are a smart, educated guy and I was always open to learning from you .. but not like this.

            Bye

            • marty mars 7.2.1.1.1.1
              30 September 2016 at 1:56 pm

              thanks.

              I find you always steer the discussion to what YOU think is important and invariably you end up talking about yourself. You very rarely listen or even accept another angle or viewpoint but you do pretend to, then a bit later it is back to the same thing you wanted to talk about from the beginning. I find in these (race relations and sexuality) discussions you are not honest, you have an agenda – and I might say I’m not the only commenter who has said this to you.

              I have spoken numerous times (from way back years ago when you called Lew a race traitor for being non-Māori supporter of Māori) about my views on this and other subjects – I even had/have a blog on these things with 1612 posts since 22 March 2009 on “Ngāi Tahu – environment – people – kaitiakitanga – space – indigenous rights – politics – Māori – earth – and anything else that catches my eye”.

              So your “You make yourself a small target so as to avoid authentic engagement.” is an out and out lie.

              You are correct in that I don’t bother trying to explain my views to racists or right wing nut jobs or those who pretend to listen (like you) when really they are not. I just don’t have the energy to bother with people like that – that deliberately mislead, misconstrue and misrepresent – I talk to those that listen, those that show they want to listen and those that show they have listened – that is not you red. You are too full of your own ideas, too full of your own self righteous opinions and your agendas that provide evidence of all of the flowery and important things you think about yourself.

              Is the message getting through?

              I’ll call your bullshit out anytime I like and if you don’t like it then put your argument up.

            • marty mars 7.2.1.1.1.2
              30 September 2016 at 2:33 pm

              and red I’ll also say that it saddens me so much that you imo don’t listen and haven’t changed your opinions. It makes me feel a bit hopeless in fact for the future because I don’t actually think you are bad, fuck I wish you were, but no you are just like many and you. just. don’t. get. it.

              Thank you to the many that do – without you there’d be bugger all point continuing on.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.1.1.1.3
              30 September 2016 at 6:17 pm

              Since resorting to anger and insults is clearly going to set your ego on fire or something, did you by any chance come across a dictionary?

              • RedLogix …
                30 September 2016 at 6:47 pm

                1. the quality or state of being sovereign, or of having supreme power or authority.

                2. the status, dominion, power, or authority of a sovereign;royal rank or position; royalty.

                3. supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community.

                4. rightful status, independence, or prerogative.

                5. a sovereign or independent state, community, or political unit.

                http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sovereignty

                Clearly we are relying on synonyms 4 & 5 here in terms of community or political unit.

                Specifically we have to reject 1 and 2, and along with them any notion of supreme power or authority.

                Maybe you have a better dictionary.

                • In Vino …
                  30 September 2016 at 7:44 pm

                  To go back to Pontuis Pilate… When Judea was conquered by Rome, the Roman Senate and its Consuls took sovereignty. Their delegated Governor to that ‘province’ had governance, but not sovereignty. By Pilate’s time, Augustus had become Emperor, so he had sovereignty.
                  Pilate had designated governance. Not sovereignty. Get the idea?

                  • RedLogix …
                    30 September 2016 at 7:54 pm

                    Yes that makes sense. Another way to look at it that Pilate was effectively acting in the place of Augustus, the sovereign’s representative or agent, and thus had the authority to govern.

                    Much like our Governor General. But who delegates the task to Parliament.

                    I’m not sure if dividing the two ideas up is helpful or not. In one sense a sovereign with no authority to govern is an exercise in futility, and on the other a governing power with no sovereignty lacks all legitimacy and is subject to challenge and overthrow at every turn.

                    • In Vino …
                      30 September 2016 at 10:21 pm

                      True… I am a language teacher, so the ideas have to be divided up for me. But in the real world things get rapidly fudged. The Queen is still our nominal sovereign, but we all know that she has no power at all – if she really crossed us, we would declare ourselves a Republic, just as the Apartheid Govt. of South Africa did. The fudging of the terms – and especially what the Maori signatories understood by them – can be debated, but I am inclined to think it was actually a bit of a rip-off, and we should be making reparations if a signed document means anything at all.

    • Doogs 7.3
      30 September 2016 at 12:07 pm

      I think you are not understanding the subtlety of meaning between governance (kawanatanga) and sovereignty, Red.

      To me, governance is much more benign than sovereignty.

      My take (backed up by dictionary definitions) –
      1. Governance = general oversight for the benefit of all
      2. Sovereignty = total control over an organisation (society, business, country, etc)

      I think the distinction is clear, and important.

    • mickysavage 7.4
      30 September 2016 at 1:45 pm

      Hi RL

      I had a go at describing the difference in an earlier post (https://thestandard.org.nz/tino-rangatiratanga/)

      The post included this passage from a Waitangi Tribunal decision:

      We have concluded that in February 1840 the rangatira who signed te Tiriti did not cede their sovereignty. That is, they did not cede their authority to make and enforce law over their people or their territories. Rather, they agreed to share power and authority with the Governor. They agreed to a relationship: one in which they and Hobson were to be equal – equal while having different roles and different spheres of influence. In essence, rangatira retained their authority over their hapū and territories, while Hobson was given authority to control Pākehā.

      The rangatira also agreed to enter land transactions with the Crown. The Crown promised to investigate pre-treaty land transactions and to return any land that had been wrongly acquired. In our view that promise, too, was part of the agreement made in February 1840. Further, as part of the treaty agreement, the rangatira may well have consented to the Crown protecting them from foreign threats and representing them in international affairs where necessary. If so, however, the intention of signatory rangatira was that Britain would protect their independence, not that they would relinquish their sovereignty.

      The evidence is that this is the arrangement that Hobson explicitly put to rangatira – both through the Māori text and through his verbal explanations – and that they then assented to after receiving assurances in respect of their equality with the governor. Though Britain intended to obtain the sole right to make and enforce law over Māori as well as Pākehā, Hobson did not explain this. Rather, in keeping with his instructions, he emphasised that Britain’s intention was to control Pākehā in order to protect Māori. The detail of how this relationship was to work in practice, especially where the Māori and Pākehā populations intermingled, remained to be negotiated over time. It is clear that at no stage, however, did rangatira who signed te Tiriti in February 1840 surrender ultimate authority to the British.

      While some may see our conclusions as radical, they are not. In truth, our report represents continuity rather than dramatic change. Leading scholars – both Māori and Pākehā – have been expressing similar views for a generation or more. When all of the evidence is considered, including the texts as they were explained to rangatira, the debates at Waitangi and Mangungu, and the wider historical context, we cannot see how other conclusions can be reached.

      And my further comment was as follows:

      The rationale is essentially quite straight forward, under article one of the English version Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown, but under the Māori version of the treaty Māori ceded “kawanatanga” which is closer to governance than sovereignty. If the English wanted to make it clear that Māori were ceding sovereignty the Treaty would have said that Māori ceded Tino Rangatiratanga, but then Māori would not have signed.

      Which version should prevail? There is a principle of International Law that the indigenous version should prevail in case of conflict and the rationale behind this is clear. Why should a dominant foreign power refuse to do something it has promised to local people in their own language. The dominant foreign power should suffer from any ambiguity.

      • RedLogix 7.4.1
        30 September 2016 at 4:06 pm

        Thanks mickey. Appreciate the reference.

        Is it fair for me to conclude from your last paras that the accepted view is that iwi remain separate, independent sovereign entities? Independent of the Crown?

        As a concept I don’t have too much problem with this.

        However by itself sovereignty is fairly abstract thing. Most Pakeha New Zealanders for instance rarely concern themselves with the idea that Queen Elizabeth remains the sovereign of the New Zealand Crown, via the agency of the Governor General. Of more immediate interest to most of us is the authority vested in the NZ Parliament to govern the nation, make laws, regulation and operate various state apparatus such a Courts, Police and the like.

        Governance is what affects people’s lives.

        Clearly when the ToW was signed the reality on the ground in 1840 was exactly as described They agreed to a relationship: one in which they and Hobson were to be equal – equal while having different roles and different spheres of influence. In essence, rangatira retained their authority over their hapū and territories, while Hobson was given authority to control Pākehā.

        Again I have no quibble with this at all.

        But then it goes on The detail of how this relationship was to work in practice, especially where the Māori and Pākehā populations intermingled, remained to be negotiated over time.

        Well it is 2016, so arguably time has passed. And indeed the populations have intermingled. The various parties long ceased to operate in ‘different spheres of influence’.

        So now we have can clearly agree on the principle that Aoteoroa has multiple, separate and independent sovereign entities, the practical question which arises is how should this flow through to governance? After all this is what ordinary people care about.

        Given the vehement rejection here of the idea of a single governance, one law that applies to all citizens … then what is being proposed as the alternative?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 7.4.1.1
          30 September 2016 at 6:21 pm

          How about the fact that Aotearoa is a geographical area occupied by two nations? Oh noes! A paradox! Dogs and cats living together!

          Deal with it.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 7.4.1.1.1.1
              30 September 2016 at 6:42 pm

              Piling paradox upon paradox won’t help your argument. Is the notion of united nations such a great leap?

              • Colonial Viper …
                30 September 2016 at 6:56 pm

                A nearly unworkable one, if you mean different laws and different courts and different currencies and different militaries and different immigration rules for each nation.

                • RedLogix …
                  30 September 2016 at 7:13 pm

                  It could be structured so a residual nation state retained control over external affairs, and acted as a mediator and arbiter between those groups within it. Different currencies, immigration rules and militaries are not a necessary feature I would think.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    30 September 2016 at 7:32 pm

                    But would this residual nation state still have the legislative and law enforcement muscle to ensure that internal agreements are honoured.

                    Nations with limited to no control over their own monetary and taxation policies, courts, borders or physical/military security are not sovereign in any normal sense of the term.

                  • mickysavage …
                    30 September 2016 at 8:25 pm

                    Or that one nation’s legal system decides on issues but has to recognise the agreement made by both nations.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  30 September 2016 at 7:54 pm

                  Keep talking: you’re a reliable barometer on how not to do things.

              • RedLogix …
                30 September 2016 at 6:59 pm

                Do you mean multiple sovereignty?

                Fair enough if you want to propose that leap. It necessarily means a radical break from the current structures of political and legal thinking.

  8. Chris 8
    30 September 2016 at 11:02 am

    Peter Shirtcliffe. Says it all, really.

  9. marty mars 9
    30 September 2016 at 11:06 am

    Imagine being Māori and having this come up time after time after time – how would you feel?

    Plus the ture whenua bill – http://equaljusticeproject.co.nz/2016/07/cross-examination-understanding-the-opposition-to-the-te-ture-whenua-maori-bill/

    Plus the Kermadec Sanctuary – http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1609/S00159/government-rejects-maori-compromise-to-kermadec-sanctuary.htm

    So that is culture, land and sea – hmmm what else – oh that’s right – the tamariki, our future – https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-28092016/#comment-1237820

    There are many, many, other battles happening – all around us, all over this land by Māori. The continual fight for equal rights and partnership, for the land and non-exploitation of resources and to stop the desecration of sacred sites and rivers and the land and the people, for dignity and acceptance of mana. This country and these battle are mostly invisible and this, Māori have come to expect, as the normal way this country is.

    And we need allies and friends and supporters and whanau, and loved ones to stand with us against all of the items I have mentioned. And I am very happy to start with this one raised by those racist bastards pledging hobsons choice. They are the dog shit on our shoe and wiping them off won’t do – nup – they must be washed off with vocal and continuous exclamations of how disgusting, smelly and un-aotearoan they are – they aren’t us, they aren’t even close to being us – but they can help us pull together – let’s keep doing that eh.

    • Stunned Mullet 9.1
      30 September 2016 at 12:06 pm

      I’m Maori and I couldn’t give a crap.

      Why should I waste my and my family’s time worrying about what some has been has said in the media ?

    • Richard Rawshark 9.2
      30 September 2016 at 12:17 pm

      I understand MM. fkn ignore it, Don Brash is just pre election stirring shit, and wow look it’s working. Brash the prick.

      Take a special breed of stupid not to see the dirty politics going on.

      And Maori seats in this racist country.. gold

      MM, NZ is a dirty racist shit hole, populated and ruled by privileged white men, and people who think that’s the thing to be. Hekia, Sam etc.

      It’s a joke mate, the whole of our government is a big joke.

      The treaty, someone was always going to rip the other off, No doubt.

      Hence the wording changes in translation etc.

      You know MM sometimes I think to myself, let them do whatever they want, in fact encourage it, they say this is what the people want, soon as they start their own agenda’s the sooner the public backlash will start and hopefully turn on them , violently.

        • Chuck 9.2.1.1
          2 October 2016 at 4:28 pm

          “the sooner the public backlash will start and hopefully turn on them , violently.”

          It seems you have your first foot solider marty mars…in Richard Rawshark.

          Do you really think violence is the way to impose your views on New Zealander’s?

          • marty mars 9.2.1.1.1
            2 October 2016 at 4:45 pm

            I was thanking richard for his comments directed at me, such as “I understand” and “ignore it”.

            I don’t condone violence, and I don’t need foot soldiers – surprised you have stretched that all out of my ‘thanks richard’ – rwnj’s eh, just love making it muddy.

    • Karen 9.3
      30 September 2016 at 1:43 pm

      I’m Pākehā and I am sick to death of it.

      I’m sick to death of the ignorant racism from so many of my fellow New Zealanders and their refusal to to make any attempt to understand issues from a Māori perspective. I hate how they don’t bother to find out about treaty grievances or read any of the material behind treaty settlements but are happy to claim Māori are somehow privileged in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

      Your anger is totally justified, Marty.

  10. OldTimer 10
    30 September 2016 at 11:12 am

    one people, one law, one set of property rights? yea right. 100% under one law 2% or less under special laws/treaty settlements is that privilege. Does Brash really believe in one law for all

  12. Draco T Bastard 12
    30 September 2016 at 11:51 am

    How Pākehā are you?

    Mr Oakley is no stranger in this debate. He lobbied against the commemoration of the New Zealand Wars, and once described the conflict as “sporadic terrorist attacks on our sovereignty”.

    And he still rejects any criticism of the Settlements Act of 1863, which led to the confiscation of more than three million acres of land.

    “Well if there was a law made at that time and it was enacted by the government, it surely was not breaking any law.”

    I suspect that if the government passed a law saying that if he broke the speed limit the government would take everything he owned and then retrospectively enacted that to a point just before when he actually broke the speed limit and took everything he owned he’d probably think that things weren’t on the up and up.

    And, yes, that is exactly what happened with that Act of parliament. It was passed in December:

    This law, passed in December 1863, allowed for the confiscation of land

    but made retrospective to January 1863:

    Legislation for the confiscations was contained in the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863, which provided for the seizing of land from Māori tribes who had been in rebellion against the Government after 1 January 1863.

    I’m pretty sure that Mr Oakley knows and understands that.

  13. andrew murray 13
    30 September 2016 at 11:53 am

    This is a good post, but it falls victim to a neo liberal insistence on discussing class issues in terms of race. While the racist implications are clear this is firstly an issue of class inequality. Being Maori just makes the class based inequalities easier to justify in a predominantly pakeha world view.

  14. Ralf Crown 14
    30 September 2016 at 12:14 pm

    Don Brash and Peter Shirtcliffe – and a few more of that old tribe, well – the old colonial hollow men. Living relics from a bygone era who now like to embrace all the races and now call them equal, just because these hollow men now allows and say so. Listen all you little inferior races – of any colour -, we now declare you our equals, you are one of us now. Please come and sit in our lap and listen to how you now are expected to behave in the new found equality we have decided to include you in. At least it all sounds so to me. Maybe it is time to move on from their beancounter culture and join the rest of the world.

  15. Richard Rawshark 15
    30 September 2016 at 12:24 pm

    Expect this election to be the dirtiest, evilest election ever, as John Key pulls out all the tricks he can to be the first to make 4 terms, a goal driven fuckwit on a mission and it’s started, out rolls the Brash, to scuttle NZ first by calling Winston his mate.

    You will see unpresedented spending by national flouting all the rules they can, whilst sending out scuttling missions for the other parties.

    This election coming will be a shocker of an election.

    • Garibaldi 15.1
      30 September 2016 at 4:10 pm

      I’m not so sure that it will be so dirty Richard. The Right have the media so tied up there’s no way that National is going to be properly held to account. Unless we have something big happen between now and the election it is going to be a bit of a cake walk for Key and his motley crew of useless bastards…. just ‘tax cuts’ will do it for the sheeple of NZ.

  16. left_forward 16
    30 September 2016 at 12:30 pm

    I wonder how much Don, Peter and the others have integrated Maoritanga into their lives, in this spirit of oneness? Do they speak Te Reo? Have they been to a tangi recently? Tiriti workshop maybe?

  17. Takere 17
    30 September 2016 at 2:18 pm

    Don’s new party should be named, “The Retread Party”. It is a distraction for the rut the NactMP Government have created for themselves which is compounding the serious issues they don’t want to confront head on.

    The Housing Crisis in Auckland, so Pullah Benefit fronts a meeting in Tauranga to promote a interim Housing project in Otahuhu for 51 temporary houses.

    Where’s the Trade Minister? All of this dodgy Steel has been built into our roading infrastructure, residential housing & commercial building for the past 4 years!
    Insurance company’s are refusing to cover any structure built with Chinese Steel! Thats a major fuck-up!
    Deutche Bank could implode which the big four Ozzie banks (& parent banks) who own 87% of the NZ market and the rest (13%) are directly funded by the European & US banks who are tied to for borrowings?
    Real Job shortage issues. TradeMe & Seek are perpetuating Dildo Joyce’s magic 270,00 jobs created over the past 8 years? Churn, casual short-term jobs that go nowhere??

    Don & his brethren have to be put down once & for all… but most of all, don’t be distracted by this bullshit.

    • framu 17.1
      30 September 2016 at 3:10 pm

      exactly

      and remember that brash believes that its not just morally right, but morally required, to lie about something in order to advance it if the public arent on board

      thats in his own words

  18. Tanz 18
    30 September 2016 at 2:37 pm

    Good on him. NZ is very much heading down the race-based path, and now Maori are treated as above everyone else and our historical narrative is being changed by the gravy trainers to suit their own ends. They have been paid many millions, yet none of it gets to those that need it. This is why I don’t vote in local elections – the left have biased ideals.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1
      30 September 2016 at 3:07 pm

      Your opinion is nonsense.

    • framu 18.2
      30 September 2016 at 3:08 pm

      lot of rubbish tanz.

      Go and look at WHY we have particular policies directed at maori

      If you think maori are so priviliged go and assume a life style the fits the stats for the average maori. Go on, do it, for a year at the very least

      I mean, if they’ve got all this stuff pakeha dont have an all that.

      ————————————-

      “They have been paid many millions, yet none of it gets to those that need it. ”

      Despite valid criticisms of corporate behaviour – theres a very good reason that its not handed out to individual iwi members as a cash bonus – it wouldnt go very far and would be a pointless exercise that didnt build a single speck of long term economic autonomy

      and finally – start recognising that what maori ask for in settlements is in single % figures when compared to what they have lost via treaty breaches.

    • marty mars 18.3
      30 September 2016 at 3:08 pm

      thanks tanz we all needed a laugh and your mindless dribble helps us all with that.

    • left_forward 18.4
      30 September 2016 at 3:55 pm

      Thank goodness you don’t vote !

    • Daveosaurus 18.5
      1 October 2016 at 12:10 am

      If you really hate New Zealanders so much, feel free to leave. The door’s open.

  19. The Pink Postman 19
    30 September 2016 at 3:23 pm

    Racism must always be opposed by decent thinking people .And in particular the political Left.Not to do so resulted in the Holocaust. “Remember they came for the Jews but I didn’t care”

  20. Richard Rawshark 20
    30 September 2016 at 4:27 pm

    A general comment on the tone of comments..

    This is why I was disgusted by the Maori Party propping National up, just to say that if they had not they were not at the table.

    Weakest excuse ever, and look at the social harm National in power has caused to everyone not only Maori, and how far back the false perception of Maori being only there for hand outs or hand up has gotten to the easily swayed average NZ racist.

    For the Short Term the Maori party gained the pet project of attacking smoking.. as far as I can tell the only achievement Turia gained.

    Negatives well outweigh the positives from the accord and it’s time the Maori party started weighing up the cost benefit analysis properly.

    IMHO.

    They should also be out there condemning Brash, why the silence?.

    Tis smelly this alliance, reeks to high heaven.

  21. Groundhog 21
    30 September 2016 at 5:26 pm

    The negative statistics in this post for Maori support the Hobson’s Pledge ideas because they show that Maori Privilege isn’t working! We need to wind all race based privilege back to one law for all, and address these statistics with Maori, not over them.

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 21.1
      30 September 2016 at 8:13 pm

      Except for the rich, remember. We need special privilege for them.

      • Groundhog 21.1.1
        2 October 2016 at 4:18 pm

        Can you give me an example of this ‘rich privilege’? Is it like ‘white privilege’? A figment of the imagination?

        • UncookedSelachimorpha 21.1.1.1
          2 October 2016 at 4:53 pm

          e.g. The choice to have minimal capital taxes, directly favours those with capital over those who work – those with significant capital (and who derive more of their income from the return on capital) are overwhelmingly the rich.

          • Groundhog 21.1.1.1.1
            3 October 2016 at 10:10 pm

            Your response makes a number of false assumptions, these being:

            1. That all the only people with capital are ‘rich’.
            2. That all of the income from capital is, in fact, capital gains, as opposed to taxable income.
            3. That we have a ‘minimal’ capital tax.

  22. RTM 22
    30 September 2016 at 5:29 pm

    If Brash is such a devout anti-racist, why is a columnist for a paper that promotes neo-Nazis and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, besides anti-Maori nonsense?
    http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2016/07/david-ickes-kiwi-fans-and-their.html

    • ropata 22.1
      30 September 2016 at 10:23 pm

      +1 interesting link. Didn’t realise Brash associated himself with Neo Nazis.

      This comment by ‘David’ was also very good:

      I am not so sure all David Icke’s theories are so laughable. Amiri Baraka wrote a long poem in 2002 ‘Who Blew Up America’ That aspect doesn’t necessarily have to include anti-Semitism as Israel is one of the most dangerous terrorist nations in the world as is the US. The record of the US leaves it problematic that we or anyone have any faith in their ‘findings’ or so-called ‘investigations’ into 9/11 which could well have been some kind of ‘inside job’ or something that the secret services aided and abetted. I also am suspicious of many of the so-called “terrorist attacks” in the US….

      If Trump gains power he may either manufacture or in fact aid and abet a terrorist attack. The US Imperialists and Big Money are not worried about terrorism They love it.

      I also suspect they will use any increase of these incidents as Hitler did when he dressed up Polish soldiers as German soldiers, shot them, and said: “We are under attack from terrorists” and then attacked Poland.

      The US will use similar ploys. In fact I suspect they will institute a military dictatorship. I think they are in crisis mode. The Americans are very much into gun violence and racism as is the Fuehrer Trumpf so I expect to see them all excited by a military Government. It will gives millions a focus and a purpose.

      But Icke is clearly touched in his other theories.

      The trouble is that, while fairly intelligent liberals will be aware of how to analyse these things: millions of people in the world don’t care. For them many of the things we think are clearly untrue are true to them…or, and this is a key to knowledge, they don’t BELIEVE the authorities in the US. If you don’t believe something you cant know it.

      So I think we are heading to an era where religion will be more and more important to people than science. Science has failed largely. It can explain how things interact to a point, but it fails to explain or have any idea of what things are. Religion and philosophy are fatal to neglect as the Soviets found out.

      In any case, it is clear that we now have a man who may be the “leader of the free world” who will welcome the racists and National socialists and anyone who will be on his side. The vast numbers of the unwashed, unfortunately, are backing him. Supposedly his father was in the KKK and his sons or one of them loves shooting animals such as lions and other endangered things. And his attitude to women is not good…So, I don’t think that the distributors of the Franklin News would care. Racism is widespread in the world. We are in another cycle similar to that which lead to the World Wars of the 20th Century.

  23. Ross 23
    30 September 2016 at 7:24 pm

    Some people may have forgotten that Don Brash wants a Commission of Inquiry into the Peter Ellis case. How many current politicians are scared at the thought of that idea? Brash may or may not be a racist but I’d hazard a guess that he doesn’t lack, like many politicians do, moral courage. He should be applauded for that.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/64348591/peter-ellis-inquiry-bid-led-by-don-brash
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10336844

    • Craig H 23.1
      30 September 2016 at 11:03 pm

      He believes a lot of things, so at least some of them may be OK…

      • Ross 23.1.1
        1 October 2016 at 7:26 am

        My point is that he appears to have moral courage. He believes that Ellis was the victim of a miscarriage of justice and wants to rectify that injustice. How many of the current crop of MPs are prepared to do that?

  24. Gangnam Style 24
    1 October 2016 at 10:16 am

    Its is a funny & telling scene in the Hollowmen movie…

    Brash is meeting & shaking hands with people, he greets a young asian woman…
    Brash : “Hi, where are you from?”
    Woman : “Forsyth Barr.”
    Brash : “No I meant, where are you from?”
    Woman “Ahh… Te Kuiti.”
    Brash : “No, no, I meant where are you originally from?”
    Woman : “Oh, um, China.”
    Brash : “Oh, my wife is from Singapore.”

    (I might have misremembered ‘China’ & ‘Te Kuiti’ but it was something like that.)

  25. Chooky 25
    1 October 2016 at 2:09 pm

    ‘Brash character survives from past’

    …”The great thing about Big Ben pies is you can cook them fast. Which at the moment is about all I have time for, if I eat at all.”

    He’s been so busy with this coup business that he’s only had two meals a day. Judging by the contents of his kitchen, this is sultana bran for breakfast and a Big Ben pie for supper.”…

    Brash startled the cows with his methane emissions

  26. mosa 26
    1 October 2016 at 2:45 pm

    This latest Brash enterprise is a re run of 2004 when for political expediency he pushed the whole special privilege bandwagon as part of a concerted effort to move National up in the polls and what he had to say had resonated with his targeted constituency and had the desired effect and bought a lot of people that felt the same way over to a grateful National party and that huge jump in support has stayed with them ever since.

    The timing is interesting in the electoral cycle and will have an impact on the run up to the next general election in what is still an emotive issue in this country and Brash and his backers will have the money to back his anti priviledge campaign and where this could end up is anybodys guess.

    It shows we still have a hell of a long way to go before we are ever going to be “one people” and that privilege is fine in New Zealand as long as you are white and rich or comfortably off and can sit in judgement on those who are not “one of us”.

    Maori in the twenty first century are still in most cases still marginalised , poor and stereotyped despite huge treaty settlements which clearly have not benefited all Maori and many are a sad prison statistic.
    We use Maori culture and language to identify ourselves proudly as kiwis but dont extend that pride to the race of people themselves when it really matters. We have paid them off now they should just go away and be quiet.
    If Brash and his well to do entourage were principled and human they would be coming up with a plan to help the Maori people and investigate why these huge settlements have not reached and lifted all Maori regardless of what tribe they come from instead of using them as a convenient political scapegoat to preserve their own status and position.

  28. Henry Filth 28
    1 October 2016 at 4:34 pm

    This is the same tired people pushing the same tired ideas. The aim is to create an “issue” upon which can be built careers.

    The “issue” is fundamentally incapable of resolution, which means that the careers built on it will last forever and can be handed down to the next generation (or more).

    Possibly the most hypocritical, cynical exercise I have come across in a lifetimes association with cynical hypocrites.

  29. Ad 29
    2 October 2016 at 7:58 am

    I had a look at the Hobson’s Pledge link and it sounded like New Zealand First had got there a long time ago. Winston Peters has been resolute and consistent in this space for a long time. Since the Hobson’s Pledge stated purpose is to support parties that support their policies, I think it’s natural that they should direct their support to New Zealand First.

    And to be clear, NZFirst’s attitude to the Treaty of Waitangi is one of the few reasons that I don’t vote for them.