web analytics

Open mike 23/12/2022

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, December 23rd, 2022 - 152 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

152 comments on “Open mike 23/12/2022 ”

  1. Anker 1

    https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-outcomes/?fbclid=IwAR12UeP0gaDwhELGQpoqiEUU8ToPQ1tzvltnXAARKRiSGZzqKP1aEBx3RoY

    A very comprehensive and balanced article about detransitioners in the transgender population.

    A journalist from Reuteurs writes about Dr Kinnon McKinnon a transman, who initially proclaimed that detransitioning was very rare and more to do with stigma. Dr McKinon dug a little deeper and changed their mind. Good case studies too

  2. Jenny are we there yet 2

    Why public transport is great.

  3. Thank you and Merry Christmas to all. We hope you all have a refreshing break with family and friends. Trish and Norm Bremner.heart

  4. Francesca 5

    pretty much a social thing amongst animals .In the absence of a rooster a hen can take over the social function of a male within the flock, but as the article revealed, no working penis or male gamete develops.If biological change was possible in human nature , there'd be no need for cosmetic surgery of the "sex change" kind.

    • Temp ORary 5.1

      Francesca: Gender-affirming surgeries are a bit more than cosmetic. Hormone Replacement Therapy is a more common medical assistance for trans people's health and well-being anyway. Trans people preceded both of course – Māori irawhiti in Aotearoa for one.

      Sex and gender are not the same thing.

      • Francesca 5.1.1

        Agree with you that sex and gender are not the same thing '

        Cultural expressions of gender are incredibly varied, a social construct that no one wants to be imprisoned by.

        Even full on hormone treatment won't grow a functioning penis or uterus.In that respect you cannot change sex, you will just appear more feminine or masculine

        I would be interested to see the historical use of the word irawhiti in Maori language .My understanding is that takatapui for anything other than same sex attraction , and irawhiti are contemporary constructs

      • Visubversa 5.1.2

        Sex and gender are definitely not the same thing. Sex is to gender what astronomy is to astrology. You are welcome to believe in astrology – but astronomy (and its sister sciences) got us to the moon and puts robots on Mars.

        And that so called "gender affirming" treatment affects only the primary and secondary SEX characteristics. You can "affirm" someone's gender simply by saying so.

        Chemical castration and mutilating and sterilising surgeries are today's lobotomies.

        • RedLogix 5.1.2.1

          I agree – the difference is that sex is a word that conveys something biological, definitive and objective. Gender by contrast is a made up bullshit word that means anything anyone wants it to.

  5. Temp ORary 6

    The fix is in:

    The gates at the hotel are locked and security at the gates are only allowing people that are on the list to go up for the meeting.

    The list is provided by SODELPA General Secretary, Lenaitasi Duru on who should be allowed into the premises for the meeting…

    Some military vehicles have also been seen patrolling the area.

    The media is not allowed into the premises.

    3 of the board members that arrived for the meeting were not allowed in as they have been told that their term is expired.

    The wife of the late former Prime Minister and founder of the party, Mrs Leba Qarase was also not allowed in when she came to the venue…

    SODELPA's Acting Deputy Leader, Aseri Radrodro said… some members of the management board had their terms expired as all members that were seated in any board meeting should have their terms for two years.

    Radrodro says the main agenda for today’s meeting is the decision of the board on which party to go with.

    https://www.fijivillage.com/news/SODELPA-management-board-meeting-gets-underway-some-people-not-allowed-in-f45rx8/

    My bet is that Bainimarama's Fiji First will get the nod (14 to 8 would be my guess). But the big question is what happens then? Fiji have had a few days of hope (though strange for me to refer to a coalition headed by Rabuka in that way). Where does it go from there? Are all the military and police onside with the old PM, or just the senior officers?

    Interesting Times!

  6. Stephen D 7

    Some background to the politics in the Caucuses.

    https://daily.jstor.org/the-birth-of-the-soviet-union-and-the-death-of-the-russian-revolution/?utm_term=Read%20More&utm_campaign=jstordaily_12222022&utm_content=email&utm_source=Act-On+Software&utm_medium=email

    ”Lenin concluded that independence plus compromise over culture and language were essential to maintaining communist control of Ukraine.”

  7. RedLogix 8

    Waitangi Tribunal dismantles the NZ State.

    Essentially foreshadows two separate sovereignties based on race. If nothing else the Tribunal seems to have gift wrapped ACT an election year pressie beyond their wildest dreams.

    • swordfish 8.1

      .

      Yep, a potential swing to ACT esp for former Nats suspicious that a Luxon Govt will quietly settle for much of the extremist Woke agenda … and a potential swing to NZF esp for disillusioned Labour voters aware that the Party's been captured by an affluent authoritarian cadre committed to a crude, dangerously-deluded Critical Theory dogma … destined to viciously scapegoat low/low-middle income working people into a degraded second-class citizenship if they're unlucky enough to possess the wrong skin colour.

      Health, Housing, essential disenfranchisement & so on.

      Suffering, sacrificing & an early death for them … affluence, power, perpetual virtue-signaling & in-group prestige enhancement for the Woke professional-managerial class … antithesis of traditional Social Democracy, Labour Party politics & the Left.

      Possibly an almost inevitable consequence of the elite capture of the main organs of the Left. They’ll subvert & pervert fundamental social democratic principles to their own whims & interests every single time. All the more so in an Age of Narcissism.

      We really do need a genuine new social democratic party, bereft of the ruthless self-interest & manipulative anti-democratic proclivities of affluent elitist Wokedom.

      • Anker 8.1.1

        Agree Swordfish.

        And while I am still on the Standard, wishing you a very Merry Christmas. I hope you and your parents have the best celebration possible given the circumstances you are facing.

        Have much appreciated your commentary on the Standard

      • Sacha 8.1.2

        I hope you find some peace over coming days.

      • Macro 8.1.3

        Florida is the place for you!

        BTW The idea of the Treaty between the Crown and Maori was initially conceived in the early 19thC in Britain by a group of humanitarian politicians:

        Several decades before the Treaty was signed both slavery abolitionist William Wilberforce and others who were part of the humanitarian Clapham Sect backed the Church Missionary Society (CMS) and a missionary move into New Zealand.

        Wilberforce himself was an active patron to Samuel Marsden who would eventually preach the first Christian sermon on New Zealand shores in 1814 at the invitation of Maori chief Ruatara.

        The more humanitarian attitude championed in part by Wilberforce and his legal counsel, friend and later brother-in-law James Stephen, who together bought an end to the slave trade, extended to the new generation of influential humanitarian Christians.

        It was James Stephen’s son, who as British Colonial Secretary, gave the instructions to Lord Normanby ensure Hobson set out the mutually beneficial principals of agreements that became known as the Treaty of Waitangi.

        Stephen was well aware of the atrocities that had been perpetuated on the indigenous people of other nations by the process of British colonisation and was determined that this was never to happen in New Zealand.

        Maori land and resources were to be protected by law and they were to be treated as equal rights citizens with the British.

        Williams and son, who were both fluent in the Maori language, knew the words that would convey the intent of this covenant, which they hoped would not only bring British law to govern the unruly activities of British citizens but protect Maori from ruthless landgrabbers and give them a say in what happened in their own land.

        ….

        Sadly within three years of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, when the humanitarian Christians had gone from the Colonial Office, both missionaries and Maori were faced with clear evidence that they’d both been betrayed.

      • Bearded Git 8.1.4

        They also need a genuine socialist party in the UK…..they used to have one until they self-destructed …..if people can be convinced by the media that Corbyn is a racist they can be convinced of anything

    • Anker 8.2

      "essentially foreshadows two separate sovereignties based on race".

      Who really wants that? Where on earth has that gone well.

      If it has to go this way, then I think Maori should run separate schooling, separate health, separate social welfare etc etc. Then get on with it.

      Learn Maturanga Maori in the Maori system. Keep it out of science.

      My husband is Maori. He's bloody disgusted with this.

      • RedLogix 8.2.1

        Do you think any govt would be willing to say no to the Tribunal?

        • Anker 8.2.1.1

          Red Logix, I don't know. Not this Govt.

          Labour are dialling back their co-governance plans for next year. If they are voted back in, there is very little question in my mind that they will roll it out again.

          Listened to a great interview with Jim Bolgar talking about co-governance. This was in the context of Three Waters, Hepuapua etc.

          Hepuapua, Three Waters, the Rotorua Admin Bill have given many NZders cause to be concerned about what it means and where it is going.

          Bolgar said the PM needs to come out and tell us what she means by co-governance and where she wants to take it. I couldn't agree more.

          • RedLogix 8.2.1.1.1

            the PM needs to come out and tell us what she means by co-governance and where she wants to take it.

            Yes. In my experience, both here and in my work life, people who are persistently vague about the details of their big vision, are not being coy because they do not know these details – but because they damn well do know, but do not want to say them out loud.

            • pat 8.2.1.1.1.1

              As this ruling has only just been made and the implications are unclear it may be a little premature to pose this question but as with everything to do with this topic the question that always springs to mind is HOW can any of these aspirations be actioned within a democracy?

              As far as I can see they cannot and that is problematic.

              • Anker

                Bang on Pat. Wishing you a very Merry Christmas.

                Have appreciated your comments on The Standard

              • weka

                how about something like Scotland which has two parliaments: the Scottish and the UK? Afaik, Scots get two votes, in the UK General Election and in the Scottish GE. Not saying this should happen here, but pointing out that democracy comes in various forms.

                • pat

                  Scotland is however a seperate nation within a union….not sure thats a comparable situation…where is the border in the NZ context?

                  • weka

                    so it would work democratically here if there was a geographical boundary?

                    • RedLogix

                      Keep in mind there are at least 13 separate iwi, each with their own sovereignty and territory. And in total covering the entire land mass of NZ.

                      Nor much geographic space left for anyone else.

                    • SPC

                      It does not work there. The UK problem is that there is no English parliament (one reason for the Brexit vote).

                    • weka []

                      In what ways do you think it doesn’t work in the UK?

                      Isn’t it the Scots that prevent the UK government from being mostly Tory? ie an English government would shift the Overton Window rightwards.

                    • SPC

                      The Labour Party looked at an English parliament as a way to build a better democracy back in 2016.

                      https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/05/labour-rules-out-english-parliament

                      https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/04/england-should-be-offered-own-parliament-to-overcome-uks-democratic-deficit

                      This was a few months before the Brexit vote.

                    • SPC

                      In what ways do you think it doesn’t work in the UK?

                      English nationalism impacts on the wider UK governance, when that is a regional self governance matter.

                      Isn’t it the Scots that prevent the UK government from being mostly Tory? ie an English government would shift the Overton Window rightwards.

                      An English parliament would have no impact on the maku-up of the UK Commons.

                      https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/31/keir-starmer-urged-to-back-radical-constitutional-reform-for-uk

                      https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/25/uk-at-risk-of-becoming-failed-state-says-gordon-brown

                      https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/22/labour-considering-abolishing-house-of-lords-if-it-wins-next-election-leaked-report-reveals

                    • weka []

                      Ok, I misunderstood. You’re essentially arguing that having devolved governments across all the UK would improve things. How would you see that working here?

                    • SPC

                      How our future arrangements would work …

                      There are two parties contesting for government which complicates co-operation (developing a coherent consensus about the way forward).

                      There is acting on the signing onto acceptance of indigenous peoples rights at the UN, and also these two WT reports (the second in the writing since mid 2018).

                      He Puapua refers to the break from the old practice and to a new working relationship with the indigenous, and besides that there is making the Treaty work in practice (after chieftainship of iwi was lost along with land).

                      I can note that national agency (Maori Health Authority) and local delivery (Whanau Ora) add to the historic Te Puni Kōkiri role. One suspects there will be more infrastructure to iwi land to enable housing needs to be met (and improved "water" – via or around local councils) – PGF+. None of this is outside what occurs within more devolved structures of other democracies (federal governance with states or regions, more empowered local councils and non government delivery providers).

                      The term co-governance (as per management of the conservation estate and beyond) may become less threatening to some when they realise it retains an elected governments role and function – and is less than some Maori seek.

                      Given what is provided (at each stage) will be less than what is sought, it will be an on-going process.

                    • pat

                      The philosophical issue is do we wish to govern ourselves through the mechanism of democracy.?…only when that is answered can you design how that will be applied.

                      We are attempting to place the cart before the horse.

                    • weka []

                      I haven’t seen anyone in the debate say we should do away with democracy. I’m confident that the answer to your question is yes, and that this answer is what nearly all people would choose.

                      What seems more the sticking point is that you appear to use the term ‘democracy’ to mean a narrow definition of what democracy is, and other people are using a broader definition. I see no inherent conflict between democracy and the concept of co-governance. I’ve not see anyone make a credible argument for why it is (haven’t read all the comments/threads of course).

                      You’ve also not addressed the issue of how our current form of democracy fails because it blocks the Treaty.

                    • pat

                      "I haven’t seen anyone in the debate say we should do away with democracy. I’m confident that the answer to your question is yes, and that this answer is what nearly all people would choose."

                      Consider, if you entrench certain acts that cannot be overturned by popular vote do you then have democracy?….I suggest not, and welcome an argument that says otherwise.

                    • weka []

                      how would such entrenchment be arrived at? Atm, afaik, parliament can entrench whatever it wants if it has sufficient vote and citizens don’t get a say in that.

                  • SPC

                    Those with states such as Oz and USA would appreciate there are overlapping systems – with Maori their institutions would be national and local. There is already Whanau Ora, and a Maori Health Authority (and Te Puni Kōkiri has been around for decades).

                    • weka

                      are you suggesting that Māori could have their own state government and NZ shifts to two houses?

                    • SPC

                      No, just that iwi self determination and nationwide programmes like a Maori Health Authority and Whanau Ora are well known within existing democratic governance systems.

                      And the PM has already negated the concept of an upper house (and handover of conservation estate to Maori) in favour of co-governance of such Crown assets. It was presumably a reaction to both He Puapua and the anticipated second stage WT report.

                    • pat

                      There is a fundamental fact that is being overlooked here….governance requires the raising and allocation of revenue (resources)…and democracy selects those bestowed with that power..

                      The Scottish taxation system is different to the rest of the UK and that is determined by a border….if you are Scottish but live in England you are subject to English taxation and allocation and vice versa.

                      How do you apply a differential allocation of resources without the definition of a border AND maintain it when the selection of those taxing and allocating are done so by a democratic majority?

                    • weka []

                      the issues you raise are important, but they’re essentially design issues. I pointed to Scotland of an example of how a people’s “aspirations be actioned within a democracy”. I wasn’t saying NZ should do this, in fact, from a sustainability design perspective, we should be developing our own solutions arising from Māori and the people’s represented by the Crown (ie the Treaty partners). Scotland opens our minds to other ways of thinking and doing.

                      If the issue is how to do that within a democracy in NZ, to me the starting point is to work through the philosophical issues first. The how will follow as those resolve, although talking about the how may also be how some people work through their philosophical objection.

                      Another way to look at this is to consider that system of democracy we have now is anti-democratic in that it by default fails to honour the treaty. We’ve gone some way to resolving that eg Māori GE seats, and making changes within systems that don’t assume Pākehā dominant thought as the default but instead centre te Ao Māori. But we’re a long way from fair or just.

                  • pat

                    Democracy is the ability to elect representation by majority vote.

                    If we have that then whatever law/regulation/governance we have will be determined by the majority….if we have law/regulation that is unable to be amended by majority then we no longer have democracy.

                    If you believe democracy means something else then describe it.

                    • weka

                      Democracy is the ability to elect representation by majority vote.

                      That’s one, narrow definition. It points to one form of representative democracy.

                      There are other forms of democracy.

                      a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives

                      From my laptop’s dictionary. Note there is nothing there about majority rule.

                      Another ways of forming policy/laws,

                      Consensus democracy, consensus politics or consensualism is the application of consensus decision-making to the process of legislation in a democracy. It is characterized by a decision-making structure that involves and takes into account as broad a range of opinions as possible, as opposed to systems where minority opinions can potentially be ignored by vote-winning majorities.[1] The latter systems are classified as majoritarian democracy.

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

                    • pat

                      Both examples given rely upon elected representatives by a majority…..they are actions taken after the fact.

        • Incognito 8.2.1.2

          What kind of question is that?

          Can you be more specific and/or narrow it down to one or more of the final recommendations?

          For your convenience, here is a link to the 1926-page Report of the Inquiry:

          https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_192668456/Te%20Raki%20W.pdf

          • RedLogix 8.2.1.2.1

            I would suggest the burden of proof lies with those who support this report and to explain to the rest of us exactly how they imagine it would be implemented.

            But how about starting with this recommendation on p1825:

            In our view, a crucial first step will be for the Crown to recognise the agreement in te Tiriti as described in our stage 1 report, and our conclusion that the Crown did not acquire sovereignty through an informed cession by the rangatira who signed te Tiriti at Waitangi, Waimate, and Māngungu.5

            In short the Tribunal is claim that the NZ Crown has no sovereignty and should therefore be dismantled. Do you agree or not?

            • Sacha 8.2.1.2.1.1

              In short the Tribunal is claim that the NZ Crown has no sovereignty and should therefore be dismantled.

              There is nothing in that passage to support your characterisation. Here is a little more on either side, for context (p1825-1826):

              To settle these grievances and restore its honour, the Crown should now enter into discussions with Te Raki Māori about how full restoration of their tino rangatiratanga can be effected in a contemporary context. We are cautious not to pre-empt work that is likely ongoing to establish which groups should carry out these negotiations on behalf of the claimants. However, the negotiations will need to be sensitive to the different structures of tribal authority that exist in Te Raki, and within Ngāpuhi, and seek to provide for the exercise of both hapū and iwi rangatiratanga. In our view, a crucial first step will be for the Crown to recognise the agreement in te Tiriti as described in our stage 1 report, and our conclusion that the Crown did not acquire sovereignty through an informed cession by the rangatira who signed te Tiriti at Waitangi, Waimate, and Māngungu. Only then can the parties move forward with a shared understanding, and begin to take steps towards giving practical effect to the agreement that they entered into in 1840, today.
              Any new institutional arrangements agreed upon should provide for Te Raki hapū and iwi to exercise the tino rangatiratanga they were guaranteed in te Tiriti, alongside other Crown agencies and local authorities within their rohe. There are optimistic signs that this is not out of reach for the parties. We note that Te Raki Māori have remained committed to te Tiriti as the foundation for their relationship with the Crown, despite the fact that its guarantees and obligations have been neglected for so many years, and little redress for past breaches has been forthcoming. Furthermore, we are conscious that in recent years government organisations have begun taking a greater interest in treaty rights of Māori at a national and local level, and steps undertaken to provide some Te Raki hapū with a greater say in aspects of governance within their rohe. We have no doubt that this will be a complex task requiring perseverance and good will from both parties. For that reason, we think this work should begin as soon as possible to establish the basis upon which parties can together move forward towards a settlement.

              The writer is not keen on paragraphs, but that sure does not sound like dismantling the Crown to me.

      • Robert Guyton 8.2.2

        So, this super-observant society lived across these far-flung Pacific islands for centuries, undistracted by theatres, television, nick-nacks and trivial gee-gaws, under super-clear skies, amidst thronging insect, reptilian, amphibian life, drinking clear, clean water, breathing air from the old-growth forests etc, etc, te mea, te mea, using their un-spoilt eyesight, hearing, sensitivities, but their findings, observations, conclusions, impressions should be discounted, kept seperate, because NOT SCIENCE???

        Why, Anker?

      • weka 8.2.3

        Learn Maturanga Maori in the Maori system. Keep it out of science.

        this means that any knowledge from Māori about say NZ bird species would be not available to Western science (researchers, education). Why do you want that?

        Mātauranga is the Māori word for knowledge, wisdom, understanding, skill. Again, why would you want to segregate that off?

        https://maoridictionary.co.nz/search?idiom=&phrase=&proverb=&loan=&histLoanWords=&keywords=matauranga

        You seem to be wanting to have it both ways. That Māori should be assimilated into the dominant (Pākehā) system, but at the same time they should keep their 'Māori' things away from that. Is that what you are really saying?

        • Anker 8.2.3.1

          Thanks Weka. Probably didn't explain myself so well here.

          I am not sure what the implications of the Waitangi Tribunal findings are.

          But my initial response following from what RL said "Essentially foreshadows two separate sovereignties based on race."

          I can't imagine how that would work. Would that mean separate laws for Maori and Pakeha? Separate parliaments (which I think was suggested in Hepuapua. ? I am really opposed to these race based policies. Nearly every Maori in NZ also has significant Pakeha ansestry. Intermarriage in NZ has worked really well in bringing the two races together (my own marriage a case in point!)

          My reference to Matarangi Maori is to do with keeping science separate. In the words of the Listener 7 MM isn't science. In his very clear article Graham Adams makes the point that Dawn Freshwater (Ak Uni VC) , Siouxie W, Shaun Hendry and even the Royal Society don't say it is.

          https://pointofordernz.wordpress.com/2021/08/03/the-attacks-on-seven-eminent-professors-over-a-listener-letter-in-which-they-championed-science-have-missed-their-target/

          But actually I do have to admit that this time I have over reacted.

          • Nic the NZer 8.2.3.1.1

            I suspect that the reactions of prominent staff of Auckland University should be understood in the context of the ongoing University restructuring.

            • Anker 8.2.3.1.1.1

              Nic this happened ie the Listener 7 issue in 2021.

              I think there is some truth in what you are saying though as many people fear if they speak out on certain issues in the current climate their jobs would be threatened. One of the Listener 7 was demoted from some of his teaching roles.

              I listened to an interview with him. He is a world expert in fish eggs (something like that anyway, I listened to it over a year ago). A guy who is obviously outstanding in his field and totally committed to science.

          • weka 8.2.3.1.2

            I appreciate the acknowledgement of overreaction.

            I understand your reference re mātauranga Māori, but my questions remain. Are you really saying that Māori knowledge and Western Science should be kept separate eg in education? That education should ignore the work being done where WS and MM are working together. As an example, scientists in NZ should stop using Māori knowledge of native species in their research?

            But my initial response following from what RL said "Essentially foreshadows two separate sovereignties based on race."

            I can't imagine how that would work. Would that mean separate laws for Maori and Pakeha? Separate parliaments (which I think was suggested in Hepuapua. ? I am really opposed to these race based policies. Nearly every Maori in NZ also has significant Pakeha ansestry. Intermarriage in NZ has worked really well in bringing the two races together (my own marriage a case in point!)

            It's not actually race. There is no such thing as race. It's ethnicity and nationality. Think of the Treaty representing two sets of nations: those in Te Ao Māori (Iwi, hapū, whānau), and those represented by the Crown (non-Māori). I've given the example elsewhere in the thread about Scotland, where there is a Scottish parliament and Scotland is also governed by the UK parliament, and Scots get two votes. Do the English object to this?

            On ethnicity, the problem with the position that you take is that it's essentially assimilationist and ultimately exterminationist (I'm talking culture here not blood/DNA). We know that te reo Māori has been suppressed by colonisation. While there is a current renaissance te reo is still at risk, because the mainstream, dominant culture in NZ doesn't value it to the extent of making the changes that will enable it to be fully what it once was.

            If you lose the language, the ability to conceptualise and communicate specific cultures, how can the culture survive?

            Saying Māori can have their things over there but they shouldn't be mainstream (ie they shouldn't be dominant) is a form of separatism which is why I don't really get your position.

            • RedLogix 8.2.3.1.2.1

              There is no such thing as race

              Oh good. Can we now abolish the 'racism' word along with it?

              Well maybe we aren't ready for that just yet. From my reading of the room, no-one here has any problem with Maori – or any other ethnicity – being valued and expressed as part of our national life. That diversity is something we can and should be proud of. The ‘assimilationist’ word can be safely tucked back into the late 19th century where it belongs.

              But the point being debated here lies in the political domain, and this Tribunal report seems very coy about it's vision for the future of NZ. On one hand it clearly rejects the idea of Crown sovereignty, and insists the rangatira who signed the ToW never ceded their pre-1840 tribal territories and rights to govern their iwi members – while at the same limiting the role of the Crown to that of governing British subjects only.

              As I stated at the outset – the conclusions in the report clearly foreshadows at least two separate sovereignties in New Zealand – full restoration of iwi based tribal governance, and a separate Crown based one for everyone else. And they go on to state, as I have quoted, because this Crown entity never has obtained sovereignty over any territory or resources in New Zealand – and it might therefore be logically relegated to a secondary function, merely regulating the affairs of the unruly second-class guest workers and tenants who arrived post -1840.

              I guess this is what they meant by 'de-colonising' all along. But nothing to see here – I am just overreacting it would seem.

              • weka

                Oh good. Can we now abolish the 'racism' word along with it?

                Thanks for letting us know that you don't know what the issues are. The differences between race and ethnicity are key to understanding all positions in the debate, and this is standard left wing analysis of the last 30 years.

                Playing games with semantics is a distraction.

                • RedLogix

                  It is a little hard to understand how racism is so central to the issues, yet at the same time race does not exist. That seems to be another sort of semantic game. Still you may well be correct, the racism word is so useful to bash people with we will likely need to hold onto it for a while yet.

                  I see the substantive portion of my comment remains unaddressed.

                  • weka

                    There is only one species of human, Homo sapiens. That there are more than one (different races) is an idea that underpins a particular kind of racism i.e. some 'races' are superior and some are inferior. It's the basis of the beliefs of for example Nazis, the KKK, Australian colonisers, European/US slave owners.

                    There is a long history of this and how it has impacted on specific peoples. eg x people have lower intelligence.

                    There is no scientific evidence to support the idea that there are distinct races of humans who are fundamentally different in their evolutionary biology. There are differences like skin colour which have arisen because of where one's ancestors lived (the relationship between sun exposure and melanin). But pale and dark humans are still the same 'race'.

                    Ethnicity is the mix of culture, genealogy and place.

                    It's not semantics to point out the difference between race and ethnicity in a political and philosophical debate. If we don't have words to differentiate between concepts then we can't build understanding or even communicate ideas.

                    Likewise racism is a word we use to apply to a set of concepts. I assume we have that word because addressing the prejudice against people on the basis of ethnicity became a necessity at a time when people still thought of 'races'. But it's not hard to understand that we don't have to take the word racism literally to know what it means.

                    I see the substantive portion of my comment remains unaddressed.

                    I didn't read the rest of your comment because your first sentence was problematic in multiple ways and needed to be addressed up front.

                    • RedLogix

                      Good so we have arrived at my core contention here all along. I firmly believe that all human beings are part of one human family. This one human race boasts an infinite variety of personality, customs, interests, appearance, beliefs and language. The challenge for human beings at this stage of development is to unite as one organic whole, delighting in the differences which make each member of the human family unique.

                      But the moment anyone heads in this direction we immediately have the 'assimilationist' word trotted out at us. Oh and ‘problematic’ for good measure.

                    • weka []

                      your paragraph eliminates ethnicity and replaces it with all humans assimilated into a oneness. It’s literally assimilationist.

                      One alternative to that is that we protect and uphold the rights of different ethnicities to be distinct and have their own sovereignty, aspirations, and resources (imo this applies to different nations as well), and develop peace through that.

                      One of the key problems with your position is that the dominant culture will by default remain the dominant culture, esp in a low form of democracy like one person/one vote and majority rules. The consequences of that are all around us in the form of institutional racism and impacts on Māori and other non-Anglo/Euro ethnicities. If you believe that colonisation and institutional racism aren’t the drivers of for example Māori prison stats or poor health outcomes, then make the case. If you believe that they are the drivers but that the dominant culture can fix those things, then again, make the case.

                      But the moment anyone heads in this direction we immediately have the ‘assimilationist’ word trotted out at us. Oh and ‘problematic’ for good measure.

                      That’s because your position argues for assimilation, and is problematic (because it doesn’t account for race and ethnicity). I’ve given reasonable arguments to support both of those assertions. Make your counter argument to those if you want.

                    • RedLogix

                      (because it doesn’t account for race and ethnicity)

                      Whoops – suddenly when you need it the race word (and it's fashionable companion 'ethnicity') reappears. I thought we had agreed there was only one human race; but when I point to the logical consequence of this – you immediately fall back to needing more than one race and ethnicity in order to have multiple identities competing for power in a zero sum game.

                      One of the key problems with your position is that the dominant culture will by default remain the dominant culture,

                      Would you argue that the Chinese people are racist because they are the dominant ethnicity in China? Or Latinos in Latin America? Tongans in Tonga? Or is it just white people you have a problem with?

                      esp in a low form of democracy like one person/one vote and majority rules.

                      Interesting. Are you arguing that a higher form of democracy would innately privilege some ethnic groups with more democratic power than others? Or do you have some other mechanism in mind?

                      The consequences of that are all around us in the form of institutional racism and impacts on Māori and other non-Anglo/Euro ethnicities.

                      Given that for example the best social statistics by ethnic group in New Zealand (and across much of the allegedly racist Anglo world) are found for Asian minorities – it is not at all clear to me how this institutional racism is supposed to work. For instance the lowest imprisonment rate per pop by ethnicity in New Zealand is for Asians – by quite a margin.

                      It also find it odd that people will argue for diversity of culture, values and behaviours – and yet insist that it is always racism whenever you get diverse outcomes.

                      That’s because your position argues for assimilation,

                      Unity does not mean uniformity – it means respecting and honouring diversity while seeking universal development and progress. A single family will have individuals each unique in their personalities, experience, roles and responsibilities; they will progress and be successful if they are united in both purpose and spirit. If they treat each other as rivals in a zero sum power game it will be hell.

                    • weka []

                      Whoops – suddenly when you need it the race word (and it’s fashionable companion ‘ethnicity’) reappears. I thought we had agreed there was only one human race; but when I point to the logical consequence of this – you immediately fall back to needing more than one race and ethnicity in order to have multiple identities competing for power in a zero sum game.

                      No, you decided it completely ignore what race and ethnicity mean and how they are different, and using that willful ignorance to push your own agenda. This is basically you, yet again, deciding what I am saying rather than listening and making counter arguments. Can’t be bothered.

                    • RedLogix

                      Can’t be bothered.

                      Because my argument challenges the core assumption of the woke cult – that all that matters about any person is their identity category. And how this plays into whatever divisive power game being played today.

                    • weka []

                      several ironies there,

                      1. I disagree with a fair amount of identity politics (close-ish to your idea of woke) as it is practiced. I prefer the concept of solidarity politics, because it allows for diversity without going into the neoliberal/libertarian excesses of IP. SP can fit easily with left wing and green politics. I don’t for instance believe that all that matters about an person is their identity category (you are wrong about that).
                      2. You have yet again decided that you know what I think/believe/feel and that I don’t. You are wrong about why I can’t be bothered. I haven’t even read most of your comments here. Reason being that you refuse to engage with shared language/concepts from which to communicate. There’s no basis on which to debate if people don’t understand the position of their political opponent. In other words, I can’t be bothered talking with someone who makes shit up about my views. This has been a long standing, consistent position from me.

                      I’m pointing these out because I want to be clear that you really have no idea what my position is but you continually argue against something in your own head as if it were my argument. And you mostly get it wrong. What’s the point?

                    • RedLogix

                      I haven’t even read most of your comments here.

                      Well that must certainly help understanding each other.

                      I’m pointing these out because I want to be clear that you really have no idea what my position

                      Because like so many people who claim high minded, radical agendas, you are remarkably coy about what you really mean when pressed for details. Every conversation gets reduced to rounds of 'no I did not say that' or the other, or it is too exhausting to be bothered stating clearly what your position is.

                      I prefer the concept of solidarity politics, because it allows for diversity without going into the neoliberal/libertarian excesses of IP

                      Well if you had explained this a lot sooner I might well have understood you a lot better. And if Solidarity Politics places a great deal of emphasis on consensus decision making – then I can only agree.

                      Our current political system places far too much weight on personalities and confrontation, made far worse by tribal political parties that do little but disrespect, belittle and undermine each other at every turn. A few days ago I described an alternate democratic structure that stripped of innately polarising elements such as political parties, would naturally lend itself toward consensus based decision-making – a process that only works when it is founded in the clash of ideas and opinions rather than egos and personalities.

  8. fender 9

    As the RNZ linked article explains, this is separate from any co-govenance "wokeism". This is the result of the Crown creating the TOW, and the Crown failing to adhere to the treaty they signed up to.

    But I'm sure it won't stop the predictable crowd from blaming the Ardern Govt.

    • RedLogix 9.1

      According to the article:

      In 2010, Ngāpuhi – the country's largest iwi – commenced hearings by asking the Tribunal to examine the basis of the New Zealand government's authority to govern. Was sovereignty ceded, or was it usurped?

      to which the Tribunal seems to have said no, that iwi did not cede sovereignty. And while the case was specific to Northland iwi, it is hard to see how it would not be extended to the whole of the nation. In other words, the historic idea that Maori became citizens of the New Zealand state by virtue of the first clause of the ToW was never true.

      Do you agree?

      • fender 9.1.1

        Makes no difference if I agree or not, I'm no lawyer. The Tribunal is full of lawyers better qualified than me to determine the contract and breeches of that contract.

        • RedLogix 9.1.1.1

          You're correct. I'm no fancy pants lawyer either. Maybe we should just stop worrying about it and let the highly paid experts on the Waitangi Tribunal get on with whatever it is they have in mind.

          • fender 9.1.1.1.1

            Any worry we have about it makes little difference.

            I'm unaware of their remuneration level.

            Not sure the TOW has anything specific in mind other than making legal conclusions and recommendations, but I'm sure some will see a conspiracy where none may or may not exist.

            • Shanreagh 9.1.1.1.1.1

              Not sure the TOW has anything specific in mind other than making legal conclusions and recommendations, but I'm sure some will see a conspiracy where none may or may not exist.

              I predict that misinterpretations of the reports of the Waitangi Tribunal will become a constant feature of The Standard and will lead, if it has not already done so, to (conspiracy) theories on a par with the level of misinformation put forward by anti vaxxers.

              And harking back to the refrain used by anti vaxxers please don't do your research from the depths of your own minds and lack of knowldge.

              Please do your own research from the actual reports of the Tribunal, a history of the Treaty, a knowledge of previous Treaty settlements, goodwill the thought that by scare mongering on the basis of your knowledge, possibly based on profound ignorance may lead directly to a change of government.

              I for one think exposing one's ignorance and possibly misinterpreting the role of the Tribunal will lead directly to a change of Government.

              Please do your fellow left wingers a service by reading first and reacting second. Reading means going to the actual report/s and not just newspaper reports or opinion pieces.

              • RedLogix

                I predict that misinterpretations of the reports of the Waitangi Tribunal will become a constant feature of The Standard and will lead, if it has not already done so, to (conspiracy) theories on a par with the level of misinformation put forward by anti vaxxers.

                So far all I have done is quote directly from the report itself and restated some of the obvious implications.

                In the meantime you already accused anyone of doing this of being a racist 'anti-Maari' and spreading disinformation. All bog-standard tactics of someone bereft of argument and have been flogged to death for decades.

                Just to note the usual progression of these kind of attack escalates from: 'coloniser' to 'racist' to 'white supremacist' to 'fascist' and culminating in something like 'genocidal nazi baby-eater'. You will likely flog each perogative word (and a few others I have overlooked) to the point of uselessness, in a pointless power-struggle, demonising anyone you disagree with. With the ultimate demand that such deplorable sub-humans should be silenced, cancelled and ideally eliminated.

                Otherwise Merry Christmas to you.

                • Incognito

                  Your Minority Report is impressive in the way it escalates a relatively innocuous comment into full-blown demonization. You know better than most here that this is one way of derailing robust debate and straddling into flame war territory. You also know that there is no need for it if one has positive intentions for genuine debate – there are other ways to make a point.

                  • RedLogix

                    You know full well that I am describing the usual progression of these things. You and I have both seen this done over and over.

                    • Incognito

                      We both know that the “the usual progression of these things” doesn’t mean that it’s inevitable and will happen. We also both know that giving someone the benefit of doubt is a sign of good faith debating. There’s no need to push things into an undesirable direction without good cause.

                    • RedLogix

                      I generally respond to people with much the same degree of good faith as they exhibit towards me.

                      I will leave it as an exercise to work out who led with the 'anti-Maari' jibe and 'disinformation' meme – in response to me referencing a Radio NZ article and quoting the Tribunal report itself. Not a promising start would you agree?

                    • Incognito []

                      The jibe you seem to be referring to is in the comment @ 9.3, AFAICS, which was a reply to the first comment of this thread @ 9 by fender, not by you.

                      Essentially, your excuse seems to be ‘they started it’ and you immediately without any hesitation and self-restraint chose to wear the shoe to start kicking with it and not necessarily just the ball.

                      Rather surprisingly, I find myself disagreeing with your versions more and more. What comes to mind is reductio ad absurdum as a rhetorical weapon rather than a genuine argument, coupled with binary absolutism and fatalism. In other words, if X then Y and nothing else. Other commenters seem to think and argue in a similar way – with the least effort possible – which is why many of the discussions of late here on TS are flawed from the outset and run into the proverbial within a few replies (although some run on ad infinitum even after the numbering of nested comments runs out and then continue elsewhere on TS). This contrarian resistance and antagonism seems to have deeper roots and larger wings than just lack of imagination. It also reminds of the gotcha style of ‘interviewing’ that we have come accustomed to on talk back. Robust debate appears to be going extinct, slowly but surely; perhaps these are manifestations of the changing Zeitgeist.

                    • SPC

                      But is the over-egged send-up an accurate foretelling by an observer or a participant?

                      When issues of national identity, group (marginalising those not of the faith based marriage bed) or class interest are touched on, Archie Bunker syndrome (cue dancing cossacks) appears,

                      Here we are challenged by a new neo-liberalism peak (NACT, note how the end of the Cold War resulted in the ECA, the end of estate tax, the deliberate lowering of wages and benefits etc) alongside a retreat to a defence of assimilation era colonialism (our Brexit – Johnson/Truss tango).

                      So it sort of behooves the older male folk not to become too easily tarnished with coloniser/sovereignty imposter/Afrikaaner-Pakeha smears (by the snapper toothed piranas of tweeterland who lie on their back for indigenous peoples only).

                    • RedLogix

                      @Incognito

                      Maybe I have just seen the race card (and escalating variations on it) played far too often and have developed an allergy to it.

                      If you think it OK to give this lazy, derogatory form of sneering a free pass – and expect it to contribute to quality debate – the I guess we will just have to let your experiment run and see how it works out.

                    • Incognito []

                      As always, context matters; who says what, when, and why? Not all those who use a lazy label conform to the stereotype of lazy race baiter, not even when provoked. In fact, some use sarcasm as a rhetorical tool. However, in heated debates on controversial issues less sarcasm might be more conducive to constructive discussions with fewer kneejerk responses.

                      Of course, this is not ‘my experiment’ but the kaupapa of this site. And of course, there always will be subversive elements such as trolls and astroturfers who try to derail debate here and public debate in general and sabotage and undermine the oft-fragile discussions on this forum. The TS commentariat is our best defence against such efforts and attacks. The commentariat is not a (small) group of neutral and objective observers but of active participants with (strong) interests and intentions (and sometimes (?) agendas). However, in typical Left style, more attacks seem to be coming from within (and behind) and comments have become more polarising and divisive.

                    • SPC

                      RedLogix, the thing is – Shanreagh was merely giving advice to fender on how best to approach the issue in future, study up and be informative. To counter …. the inference that this was about you was your own. Sorry to disillusion you, but you are not the major concern re disinformation etc.

                      It sort of behooves the older folk not to become too easily taken to entrenched end game positions (lest experience has become a burden rather than something learned from).

                • Shanreagh

                  Good grief!

                  Total over reaction.

                  I am looking back at the very mild call to do a better job than gut reactions in my post at 9.40am 24/12/22.

                  My concern is by stirring up we will put the possibility of a Nact win on the cards. While they may have different policies on Treaty claims, though who knows with the Nats, the other things that come with these governments will make us very sorry as the rights of workers and those without 7 houses recede into the far distance.

                  So it was a call to comment but to do so from one's own researched talking points not those from RW media or a once over lightly.

                  It was not directed at you but at the very apt comment of fender.

                  All I asked was that people read the actual report before jumping into their usual stances. I don't usually use words such as fascist or white supremacist in relation to those who disagree with the means etc of meeting Treaty claims.

                  I tried to draw an analogy with the anti vax mis & dis-information that dominated our media. Possibly not very successfully perhaps. The fact is that we had to waste minutes of our souls on arguments that had no merit eg magnetic vaccines, govt control etc etc, because nay sayers had brought these arguments into the public arena as if they were valid arguments.

                  I don't want us to waste minutes/hours/ etc of our lives responding to OTT views about Treaty settlements. My call has always been, as a good legally trained person, to go back to the source. Media commentary is very much a secondary source.

                  The source when looking at these Treaty claims/settlements is the actual reports of the Tribunal.

                  • RedLogix

                    OK so where do you want to go with the clear statements in the report which state that the iwi chiefs never ceded any sovereignty (repeated throughout the report in numerous statements) and on p1825:

                    In our view, a crucial first step will be for the Crown to recognise the agreement in te Tiriti as described in our stage 1 report, and our conclusion that the Crown did not acquire sovereignty through an informed cession by the rangatira who signed te Tiriti at Waitangi, Waimate, and Māngungu.

                    Seems fairly unambiguous to me. But then again I am not the one with the well trained legal mind.

                    • Shanreagh

                      As I said I have not read the report. As I said also in my note to Robert further down we are having a Christmas Eve Christmas dinner as a sort of memory of his family and their long European history.

                      I said i would read it over the break and I will. I don't think giving anyone a sentence or two without context or allowing a read is a very good way to get a balanced view. I gave the info about legally trained to indicate why, as a person, I am not attracted to superficial once over lightly summaries from the news media. I am sure you have your ways of seeking proof as a result of your engineering training and work.

          • Robert Guyton 9.1.1.1.2

            Lawyers are "fancy pants"?

            How so?

      • Anker 9.1.2

        thanks for clarifying Red Logix

        "the historic idea that Maroi became citizens of the NZ state by virtue of the first clause of the ToW was never true".

        Well, where the hell does that leave us then

      • Shanreagh 9.1.3

        @ Redlogix
        Possibly best for you to read the actual report rather than purport to debate on the basis of some media commentary.

        • RedLogix 9.1.3.1

          At something like 2000 pages long I imaging few people have read the whole thing in detail. I have scanned it though to get a sense of the general tenor, and read more carefully Ch12 which is the main conclusion and recommendation section.

          Have you?

          • Shanreagh 9.1.3.1.1

            Top of my list over the break. I have read/contributed to the content of several (4-5?) over the years. If you are familiar with Govt report writing and analysis then these follow that style. I don't find the style of writing difficult or overwhelming. I would rather read one of these reports than any OTT 'commentary' by people who think they know what the reports says.

            As a general rule to reports are beautifully written with great historical accuracy.

            • Shanreagh 9.1.3.1.1.1

              If you read my comments you will note that I am not commenting on the substance of the ToW Ngapuhi report until I have actually read it. All my comments have been of a general nature. Of course I have read the commentaries/opinion in the news media but don't class this as giving me enough to comment on the substance.

          • swordfish 9.1.3.1.2

            .

            Shanreagh (to RedLogix):

            Possibly best for you to read the actual report rather than purport to debate on the basis of some media commentary.

            RedLogix (to Shanreagh):

            I have scanned it though to get a sense of the general tenor, and read more carefully Ch12 which is the main conclusion and recommendation section … Have you?

            Shanreagh (to RedLogix):

            Top of my list over the break.

            LOL … you're your own worst enemy, Shanreagh.

            You haven’t read the report at all … & yet your chastising someone who has read the key findings for allegedly not reading it. Hilarious stuff.

            You’re a mindless child-like cheerleader for any & every ethno-nationalist /separatist / anti-democratic demand dreamt up in the power-hungry minds of the most radical Maori activists & Corporate Iwi. All emanating from a deep well of narcissism, virtue-signaling, elitist in-group prestige enhancement.

            [Are you pleased with the impact of your sniping and personal attacks on others here?

            Weka has asked you before “to reign in the person stuff a bit” (https://thestandard.org.nz/co-governance-is-orthodox-policy-for-both-national-and-labour/#comment-1924040) and I have given you a Mod note before that one (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-27-10-2022/#comment-1918092).

            I hope you are not planning to keep this up for the rest of the year. I wish you and your parents well and hope that things will be better next year – Incognito]

    • Anker 9.2

      You are correct to a degree fender it is separate from any co-govenance wokeism.

      However if it is the case that Maori never became citizens of the NZ state by virue of the first clause of the ToW, doesn't it blow apart the concept of co-governance? I would have thought it did

      • fender 9.2.1

        You may well be correct. Maybe co-governance would be a better option than dividing the country into two separate states.

        This is very messy and has the potential to put an end to NZ as we know it. Shame the Crown tried to trick their treaty partners, maybe they should have enacted a law preventing them from studying law (just kidding).

        edit: sounds like co-governance might not be enough for some anyway.

        • Sacha 9.2.1.1

          has the potential to put an end to NZ as we know it

          Good. We can do so much better.

          • Shanreagh 9.2.1.1.1

            True.

            We possibly have a chance to do better.

            • RedLogix 9.2.1.1.1.1

              Well at least you acknowledge this is the potential import of this report.

              Still taking what is already widely regarded as one of the best nations on earth (in the top 10 list for almost all measures of human development) – and then assuming that re-winding the clock to the political arrangements of 1840 would have to be an 'improvement' – is an untested assumption to say the least.

          • swordfish 9.2.1.1.2

            .

            has the potential to put an end to NZ as we know it

            Good. We can do so much better.

            The Year Zero Burn it all Down Nihilism of the socially-detached, genuinely privileged professional middle-classes … no skin in the game, no consequences for you, wielding power over others, arrogantly deluding yourselves you have the moral authority to decide precisely who the oppressed & oppressors are (and almost always getting it horribly wrong … usually for self-interested reasons) … hence, casually, recklessly, frivolously advocating deeply destructive, almost-unhinged Utopian fantasies that others … poorer, older, more vulnerable … will pay a massive price for.

            In particular, affluent Pakeha who disproportionately inherited the wealth from colonisation appear determined to viciously scapegoat the non-indigenous working class into 2nd class citizenship

            And such is the innate narcissism of your little cadre that you'll will always double-down no matter how dire the consequences of your Taliban-like demolition.

      • Craig H 9.2.2

        To quote the third principle from the original English text:

        In consideration thereof Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.

        There's a debate about the specific interpretation and impact of the first principle of te Tiriti, but the third principle clearly grants what later became the concept of citizenship regardless of the first principle unless Te Tiriti is repudiated completely.

        • RedLogix 9.2.2.1

          Yet if the iwi chiefs never ceded sovereignty at the Tribunal reports, then logically all Maori remain subjects of those chiefs – and not citizens of NZ.

          unless Te Tiriti is repudiated completely.

          Well yes – maybe that is the intent.

          • SPC 9.2.2.1.1

            He Puapua (the term means “a break” as in from, what was done to what is done next) is the name of the report to government on how it can act on New Zealand’s signing of the UN Declaration concerning the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

            Among the recommendations is creating a Māori Senate or Upper House to considering returning conservation land to iwi/hapū. But the PM has said no to an upper house … and so far the talk is around co-governance (as per the National government and the Waikato River) rather than handing over conservation land to iwi.

            The second stage of this WT report makes it clearer why the government has chosen the co-governance route in management of the Crown estate (land/water) and gone with the Maori Health Authority – to deal with the nationwide issue (as distinct from iwi claims). It can do so while maintaining a semblance of democratic norm.

            National can refuse to act on any or all of the recommendations He Puapua and WT, but Maori complaint will continue to result in findings that we are in breach. There are approaches of negation they could take but they have consequences.

    • Shanreagh 9.3

      Agree and coming up with the usual anti- 'maari' sentiments that have been such an unwelcome refrain in TS over the last year or so.

      This refrain is not based on knowledge but by 'doing one's own research' in the highways and byways of the opinion pieces, misguided and ignorant reports of the media.

      If we were less primed to see conspiracy where none exists, to be fearful of giving a fair go to our neighbours, friends, relations and fellow NZers and write on the basis of knowledge we would be further forward. Many people who may have worked around the Treaty or have a good knowledge of NZ history would gladly answer a million queries about history, meaning than try to react to posts that are essentially

      I don't understand it, I won't seek to understand it but I will give my opinion based on my misunderstanding

      Surely we can do better?

      Reading the actual report for a start is a good step. It is long but well worth it for the clear writing and the knowledge of NZ history it espouses.

      https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_192668456/Te%20Raki%20W.pdf

      A couple of key points

      every settlement since the year dot has given successful claimants

      • the ability to have Crown-owned land offered back
      • an amount in financial redress
      • an ability to have a meaningful say in the future of areas that cannot be offered back or a not crown owned but are under State control
      • changes to names that have been wrongly spelt or attributed (Aoraki etc)

      So these are not shock, horror aspects.

      • swordfish 9.3.1

        .

        Agree and coming up with the usual anti- 'maari' sentiments that have been such an unwelcome refrain in TS over the last year or so.

        Spare me the pathetic attempts to smear anyone who fails to immediately march in lockstep with each new radically-undemocratic ethno-nationalist demand [this may come as a bit of a shock to you, incidentally, but Māori don’t have a hive-mind … your highly paternalistic Noble Savage romanticism may just have led you badly astray here]

        Your perceived moral & intellectual superiority is pure self-delusion.

        Like much of your financially-privileged, power-wielding little Woke cadre, you're views are little more than shallow, narcissistic, frivolous virtue-signaling.

        Still, if you’re lucky, this little exchange might just motivate Moana Maniapoto to tweet: “We see you, Shanreagh, and you’re special”.

        [You are no in Pre-Mod until you have acknowledged that you have read, understood, and accepted the Mod note for you here: https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-23-12-2022/#comment-1928119 – Incognito]

  9. swordfish 10

    .

    Public opinion on a few high profile social issues / party policy as expressed in recent polling:

    (1) Q: Do you think young people should be sent to military boot camps if they are serious offenders? This would involve young people aged 10 to 17. [1 News-Kantar Nov 2022]

    Yes: 60%

    No: 31%

    DK: 9%

    Overwhelming support from National & ACT voters (81% & 77% respectively), very strong support from women aged 55+ & Aucklanders (67% & 65% respectively) … both Labour voters & Wellingtonians are fairly evenly divided (full figures aren't provided but there's a hint that a plurality of Labour voters support the idea) … only Green voters (71%) are strongly opposed.
    .

    (2) Q: The Government has proposed removing management and ownership of what is called the three waters, drinking water, wastewater and storm water from elected local councils to four regional water entities whose boards will be half appointed by councils and half appointed by Iwi. Do you support or oppose the proposed three waters reforms? [ Curia Oct 2022]

    Entire sample:

    Support 19% …… (women 22% / men 17%)

    Oppose 56% …… (women 52% / men 61%)

    Unsure 24% …….. (women 26% / men 22%)

    .

    Support 19% …… (Age 18-39: 21% / Age 40-59: 21% / Age 60+: 16%)

    Oppose 56% …… (Age 18-39: 47% / Age 40-59: 58%/ Age 60+: 62%)

    Unsure 24% …….. (Age 18-39: 32% / Age 40-59: 21%/ Age 60+: 21%)

    .

    Support 19% …… (Akl: 16% / Wgtn: 25% / Chch: 16% / Prov Cities 29%)

    Oppose 56% …… (Akl: 49% / Wgtn: 29%/ Chch: 57% / Prov Cities 54%)

    Unsure 24% …….. (Akl: 35% / Wgtn: 45%/ Chch: 28% / Prov Cities 17%)

    .

    Support 19% …… (Towns: 13% / Rural: 18%)

    Oppose 56% …… (Towns: 73% / Rural: 66%)

    Unsure 24% …….. (Towns: 14% / Rural: 16%)

    .

    Support 19% …… (Least deprived: 13% / Moderate: 17% / Most Deprived 33%)

    Oppose 56% …… (Least deprived: 63% / Moderate: 55% / Most Deprived 47%)

    Unsure 24% …….. (Least deprived: 24% / Moderate: 28% / Most Deprived 20%)
    .

    Support 19% …… (Nat: 23% / ACT: 4% / Lab 28% / Green 31%/ Undecided voters 13%)

    Oppose 56% …… (Nat: 63% / ACT: 78% / Lab 39% / Green 37%/ Undecided voters 64%)

    Unsure 24% …….. (Nat: 14% / ACT: 18% / Lab 34% / Green 31%/ Undecided voters 23%)

    [Curia asked the same question again in Nov 2022: results were: Support 23%/ Oppose 60%/ Unsure 18% … no crosstabs/demographic breakdowns provided at this point]

    .

    (3) Government's plan to merge RNZ & TVNZ [Curia Nov 2022] (precise wording of question not available):

    Support 22%

    Oppose 54%

    Unsure 24%

    • fender 10.1

      What were the figures for the question " should NZ have a civil war over treaty breeches and the TOW making conclusions threatening Pakeha domination"

      • swordfish 10.1.1

        .

        I'm not entirely sure they poll on the lurid echo-chamber fantasies of ludicrously self-righteous Pakeha Woke dogmatists who reduce the nuanced, complex & paradoxical reality of New Zealand history to a crude, distorted, simple-minded good vs evil Morality Tale that serves the contemporary interests of both Corporate Iwi & their Pakeha professional-managerial class fellow-travellers.

        But I could check with the major Polling organisations if you'd like.

        • fender 10.1.1.1

          Wouldn't want to put you to any trouble, just a simple question to Farrar at the next anti-tax anti-woke bigots get-together would do.

        • RedLogix 10.1.1.2

          Dear God I wish I had the talent for that! laugh

          • fender 10.1.1.2.1

            You have greater talents than emulating an embittered yesteryear talk-back host flinging slogans. Only Trump should be wishing he was as articulate as our smelly swordfish wink

            • Robert Guyton 10.1.1.2.1.1

              Yee haw x2!

            • Anker 10.1.1.2.1.2

              Do you not realise how bad you make yourself look Fender, slinging about mud at a man who is seriously ill?

              • Robert Guyton

                Mud shmud! Fender's funny. Swordy's happy to put pen (mightier than the sword!) to paper and besmirch his fellow posters and can defend himself, floridly.

                It's almost Christmas – the gifts beneath my tree are jiggling with anticipation and the table's groaning in the expectation of the weight it will bear on Christmas Day. Be happy, lax and lax again (relaaaaaaax).

                • Anker

                  Merry Christmas Robert. Wishing you and yours a very happy celebration

                  • Robert Guyton

                    Thanks, Anker – I'm at home, wrapping gifts (mostly for grandchildren) on the lounge floor; my daughter and her partner and 2 of their friends are painting cards for each other, cooking wonderful Christmas food and we're all rushing to be ready for the Christmas Parade tonight in the village. My wife is fully-engaged in knitting a dragon for one of our grandsons and I have finished sorting through the op-shop treasures I have collected throughout the year, as gifts for all of my whanau (cheepy, me!). I know what I'm getting – a gorgeous canna lily – bought it myself this morning 🙂 I've finally found a gift I know my wife will love – 5 "historical" books about towns around Southland, usually very expensive, but at $3:00 each in an op-shop, I couldn't believe my good fortune! I'll bask in the golden glow on Christmas morning! We found a huge fresh puffball in the community garden this morning and that's being added to tonight's meal now – unusual but special. We have visitors from Canada at the moment and one of them is a fungi specialist and loves to eat all sorts of fungi. He assures us the puffball will be a treat! It's very warm here in Riverton, clammy even, but there might be a deluge later in the evening – perhaps during the parade 🙂 Often we put a float in, but this year we're keeping our powder dry. Last year I dressed as Santa and listened to children's Christmas wishes, but I thought once in a life-time was enough 🙂 I trust all is well in your household and that Christmas is not causing you any anxiety. Robert

                    • Shanreagh

                      Sounds great Robert.

                      We are having our Christmas celebration tonight to mark my partner's and his parents long association with Europe and Germany in particular. (His late father served as an officer with the Indian Army in Germany during the latter part of WW2 and then as a Prof. He was a polymath like his son) )

                      I feel enlivened by the change of emphasis.

                      My partner who is an avid native forest person/land revegetator has asked for special slow release fertiliser for potting up natives in pots and has got this.

                      Over the years the emphasis has moved from gifts to food and thoughts.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Wonderful, Shanreagh! I wish your partner well in their reforesting endeavours. If you tell them that I am growing karaka successfully down here on the south coast of the South Island, they might be encouraged – kawakawa too, and kauri! There's no stopping us treehuggers! 🙂

                    • Anker

                      Very sweet. Have a good day tommorrow

              • Shanreagh

                Good grief does being ill give a person a free pass or something? I much prefer the attitude of my neighbour, who when we were talking about his recently diagnosed serious heart trouble/ops and my question about whether there was any truth that this type of illness, in particular, made people bad tempered said

                1 yes he had been warned by his clinicians that you could get bad and short tempered

                2 warned about stress impeding making the best recovery

                3 said he had decided to taiho at the moment on changing the world/pub type discussions until he knew he was not going to react in an OTT way.

              • fender

                Anker,

                1) I'm unaware of the health status of swordfish. If this has been disclosed on TS I have missed it probably because I don't have the time to spend here that I did a few years back.

                2) A few months ago I expressed to swordfish that his comments had become littered with lazy slurs used by right-wing trolls to insult marginalised groups that I hadn't noticed in his comments years ago.

                3) Just as I have no knowledge of anyone's health status it's pretty rude and presumptuous to lump anyone's defence of marginalised groups as them somehow belonging to an affluent authoritarian cadre of compulsive virtue-signalling critical race theory loving hive-minders.

                4) Any push-back to the use of slogans used to insult and belittle already downtrodden groups isn't motivated by a desire to harm anyone's fragile or otherwise health status. If push-back were to further harm someones health it would perhaps be best to avoid using condescending language usually employed by right-wingers motivated by hate and bigotry.

                5) Any harm caused to swordfish by any comment I've made is something I regret and would like make apologies for, but I believe he's less of the snowflake you are suggesting he is.

                6) Merry Christmas to you, swordfish and anyone else reading this. All the best for 2023.

                • Anker

                  Merry Christmas Fender

                • Anker

                  Yes Fender. I may be over reacting, but I have a relative who means the world to me who is facing a similar prognosis as Swordfish. I am very protective of her

                  • Shanreagh

                    Anker we all have trials and tribulations to bear, some in more serious ways than others.

                    There is no mana in allowing one's health to give free rein to a free for all in making or supporting horrible personal comments to be made about other people. In fact the mana is all the other way. We admire those who despite ill health make sound arguments on the issues without bringing hurtful personal malice into it.

                    Pl read my story about my neighbour who decided not to give in to the grumpiness that could have been expected with/after his serious heart/health issues I really admired his self knowledge, medical knowledge and his denial of falling into a grumpy stereotype.

                    This is a board where we discuss issues.

      • Shanreagh 10.1.2

        Good point fender, perhaps they could have a trial run on TS to work out the best most biased way to frame the questions?

        NB heavy sarcasm.

    • Sacha 10.2

      Support 19% …… (Least deprived: 13% / Moderate: 17% / Most Deprived 33%)

      Interesting gradient.

  10. joe90 11

    Go easy on those imported choccies.

    .

    Long viewed as healthier than other sweet treats, some brands of dark chocolate contain potentially dangerous amounts of heavy metals, according to research released on Thursday by Consumer Reports.

    Scientists at the nonprofit advocacy organization recently measured the amount of heavy metals in 28 popular brands of dark chocolate bars and found cadmium and lead in all of them. For 23 of the bars, consuming just an ounce a day would put an adult over a level for at least one of the metals that could be harmful, CR said. Five of the bars were above those levels for both cadmium and lead.

    Long-term exposure to even small amounts of heavy metals can lead to a slew of health issues, including developmental problems and brain development in young children, experts say.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dark-chocolate-metals-lead-consumer-reports-hersheys-trader-joes-cadmium/

    https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-cadmium-in-dark-chocolate-a8480295550/

  11. Anker 12

    Dam! Always told myself fine to early dark chocolate as word on the street was it was good for you!

    • Robert Guyton 12.1

      Word on the street is that Seymour's a smart cookie.

      • fender 12.1.1

        Those ACT ( Association for Corporate Takeover) streets aren't very welcoming to polite bearded hippy types. Hope you came through unscathed.

      • Anker 12.1.2

        Surprized to hear your promoting Seymour Robert

        • Shanreagh 12.1.2.1

          So I am I, especially as he wasn't!

          Word on the street is that Seymour's a smart cookie.

          I have heard this as well. Does this mean that as I agree with Robert that I also have heard the same sentiment that I am supporting/promoting Seymour. I don't think so.

          But the fact is he is viewed as increasingly personable and the sale of the quote to raise funds for the Prostate Foundation through his own Trade me account has meant that others are looking at this 'joker' and his party.

    • Sabine 12.2

      You are fine to eat dark chocolate. The trouble is that living is deadly, and people should keep that in mind. At the end of life we die, all of us and as such, enjoy a good chocolate, a fine wine, some nice meat, home made pasta, cheese and bread. Moderation is the key.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Poroporoaki: Titewhai Te Huia Hinewhare Harawira
    Ka papā te whatitiri, Hikohiko ana te uira, wāhi rua mai ana rā runga mai o Huruiki maunga Kua hinga te māreikura o te Nota, a Titewhai Harawira Nā reira, e te kahurangi, takoto, e moe Ka mōwai koa a Whakapara, kua uhia te Tai Tokerau e te kapua pōuri ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • General Election to be held on 14 October 2023
    The 2023 General Election will be held on Saturday 14 October 2023, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced today. “Announcing the election date early in the year provides New Zealanders with certainty and has become the practice of this Government and the previous one, and I believe is best practice,” Jacinda ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announces resignation
    Jacinda Ardern has announced she will step down as Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party. Her resignation will take effect on the appointment of a new Prime Minister. A caucus vote to elect a new Party Leader will occur in 3 days’ time on Sunday the 22nd of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Trade and Agriculture Minister to attend World Economic Forum and Global Forum for Food and Agricult...
    The Government is maintaining its strong trade focus in 2023 with Trade and Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor visiting Europe this week to discuss the role of agricultural trade in climate change and food security, WTO reform and New Zealand agricultural innovation. Damien O’Connor will travel tomorrow to Switzerland to attend the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Government funding relief for flood-affected Wairarapa farmers and growers
    The Government has extended its medium-scale classification of Cyclone Hale to the Wairarapa after assessing storm damage to the eastern coastline of the region. “We’re making up to $80,000 available to the East Coast Rural Support Trust to help farmers and growers recover from the significant damage in the region,” ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Government provides support to flooded Tairāwhiti communities
    The Government is making an initial contribution of $150,000 to the Mayoral Relief Fund to help communities in Tairāwhiti following ex-Tropical Cyclone Hale, Minister for Emergency Management Kieran McAnulty announced. “While Cyclone Hale has caused widespread heavy rain, flooding and high winds across many parts of the North Island, Tairāwhiti ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Government support for flood-affected Gisborne Tairāwhiti farmers and growers
    Rural Communities Minister Damien O’Connor has classified this week’s Cyclone Hale that caused significant flood damage across the Tairāwhiti/Gisborne District as a medium-scale adverse event, unlocking Government support for farmers and growers. “We’re making up to $100,000 available to help coordinate efforts as farmers and growers recover from the heavy ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Monkeypox vaccination available to eligible people from next week 
    A vaccine for people at risk of mpox (Monkeypox) will be available if prescribed by a medical practitioner to people who meet eligibility criteria from Monday 16 January, says Associate Minister of Health Dr Ayesha Verrall.   5,000 vials of the vaccine have been obtained, enough for up to 20,000 ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago