Privileged try to turn Kiwis against each other

Written By: - Date published: 8:22 am, August 14th, 2012 - 213 comments
Categories: act, national - Tags: ,

National Party campaign designer John Ansell and Invercargill-based racist Louis Crimp are planning a $2 million campaign to whip up racial hatred between Pakeha and Maori. I don’t think people will be fooled, even if anyone publishes their material. We’ve moved past the Owera days. Everyone will see this is about NACToids’ privilege, not Maori privilege.

In shades of Key’s failed attempt to divide Maori – for the Pakeha audience – between the ‘good’ Iwi Leaders and ‘ bad’ Maori Council, Ansell wants to delegitimise any attempts for justice and advancement for Maori by saying there are ‘grievers and achievers’ among Maori.

The fundamental objective, of course, is to get Pakeha angry at Mori, rather than angry at the tiny rich elite who are getting richer while the rest of us get poorer. Ideally, he would like a Tea Party situation where poor whites blinded by racism fight for the privileges of rich whites.

Ansell says there’s nothing racist about wanting equal rights for all. And there’s not. But that’s not what he and Crimp want. They want the Crown to dishonour a treaty it signed. They want to foment the myth of Maori privilege. They want to stoke up racial division. Crimp and Ansell’s public comments are laden with racism. Ansell came up with the most racist National Party political campaign since the 1970s.

If they really spend $2 million, I think it will inevitably have an effect on people. Although I doubt that the mainstream media will run the level of overtly racist material that Ansell is hinting at when he refers to when he says that he wants to “enrage the public”. That’s not just because media bosses have some standards or because of the BSA and press council consequences – it’s because New Zealanders aren’t as racist as Ansell would like us to believe, or as racist as we once were, and media that run racist ads risk losing customers.

Finally, a wee smack for Farrar. He wrote a post of this so-called ‘Treatygate’ campaign without criticising it. That can only be taken as a tacit endorsement. Now, do I think Farrar’s a racist? No, not an active one. A passive structuralist one, perhaps, but not an active one. But he knows that many of the Right’s hardcore are racist – just look at the comments section below his post. And he knows that the point of encouraging racism in the masses isn’t the racism itself but the distraction and protection it brings for the elite. So, he draws attention to Ansell’s racism without condemning it.

Farrar’s quandary is also a problem for National. Will Key come out and condemn racism from his former ad-man? Or will he be seen as endorsing it?

213 comments on “Privileged try to turn Kiwis against each other ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. tracey 1
    14 August 2012 at 8:28 am

    *sigh*

    Its interesting that economic equality isnt important to these folks. They dont believe in equality they believe in might is right, be it numerical advantage or financial. They squeal like stuck pigs when anyone steals from them.

    • Gosman 1.1
      14 August 2012 at 8:43 am

      Why should it be important to them. Equality is mainly the concern of the left. People on the right are more interested in economic freedoms. You are essentially stating that you think these people should think like you. I certainly wouldn’t want a world where everyone thought pretty much the same.

      • tracey 1.1.1
        14 August 2012 at 8:47 am

        except they use equality when they want to remove legal rights from maori… They dont frame it as legal freedom.

        • Gosman 1.1.1.1
          14 August 2012 at 9:09 am

          Depends tracey. I think they want everyone to be equal under the law, (that is certainly what they say anyway). Now I’m not sure anyone would disagree with this. The Treaty doesn’t grant Maori any additional legal protection that non-Maori don’t have as far as I am aware.

          • bad12 1.1.1.1.1
            14 August 2012 at 9:25 am

            You have that about right, the Treaty of Waitangi was a document outlining Maori property rights and equal rights of British citizens…

            • Gosman 1.1.1.1.1.1
              14 August 2012 at 9:34 am

              Exactly. Amazing we actually agree on something here.

            • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1.1.2
              14 August 2012 at 9:46 am

              Nah, from the Maori point of view the Treaty was largely about Rangatiratanga.

              I’m not sure what you guys think that is, but its not accurately translated as “Maori property rights”.

              • Gosman …
                14 August 2012 at 10:21 am

                However the Brits took the view they were guarranteeing Property and cultural rights in return for Sovereignty. Given the fact that Sovereignty trumps pretty much everything it doesn’t matter much what the Maori thought they were getting.

                • McFlock …
                  14 August 2012 at 11:27 am

                  Assuming that’s the case (big assumption), most treaty claims and settlements are about property and cultural rights, AFAIK.
                           
                  So Crimp and Ansell want what already exists – one law for all?

                  • Gosman …
                    14 August 2012 at 12:20 pm

                    Pretty much. Unless they can produce something in the way of evidence that Maori actually do get favourable treatment based on their cultural background. They might have a case for quotas in Tertiary education for example. Then again someother groups also get this I believe.

                    The one area that I would agree with them is on the Maori seats. I used to support the principle of them under FPP as the system was certainly not supportive of minorities getting a good level of representation in Parliament. However MMP has changed this. The only thing the Maori seats do now is to encourage Maori parties to spring up. The idea that a party can somehow reflect the asperations of an entire diverse cultural group is just nuts in my view. It is also ultimately racist.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 August 2012 at 12:28 pm

                      lol.
                             
                      A $2mil advertising campaign all about the Maori seats.
                          
                      Why shouldn’t a certain amount of political representation follow existing social structures, rather than just geography? Particularly when it involves one of the two parties to the Treaty? 

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 1:32 pm

                      Because it goes againt the notion of a broad based inclusive representative liberal democracy and is potentially divisive to society as a whole.

                      Ask yourself whether the Maori party would exist without the Maori seats and also ask yourself whether a single party can truly represent an entire ethnic group in politics.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 August 2012 at 4:22 pm

                      Seriously Gos,
                            
                      You think a few Maori seats are big enough of a deal to raise equivalent advertising revenue to a governing-party re-election campaign?
                             
                      While 20% of our kids live in poverty, you can’t think of a better use for $2million and campaign professionals’ time other than debating whether Maori representation in parliament should be ensured? 
                             
                      While our assets are being sold in a massive and undemocratic waste of money, you want millions spent on the Maori seats?
                             
                      While the Chch “rebuild” limps on, you want millions spent on the Maori seats?
                              
                      While registered unemployment nudges 7%, you want to waste millions on debating the Maori seats? 
                             
                      Nice to know where your priorities lie. 

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 10:23 pm

                      Ummmm… no, no I don’t want to do this. If someone else chooses to exercise their DEMOCRATIC right to express and promote an opinion then I am cool with that though.

                      You perhaps would place restrictions on topics that can be discussed in society based on your personal preferences would you?

                    • McFlock …
                      14 August 2012 at 10:33 pm

                      If they have the right to spend money on such idiocy, then I have the right to point out how fucked up their priorities are.
                             
                         
                      Love how you went from defending their position to simply defending their right to hold that position (as do I as long as it’s shy of hate speech). Coincidentally when the opportunity cost of spending money on that position was pointed out to you. 

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  14 August 2012 at 11:32 am

                  “Given the fact that Sovereignty trumps pretty much everything it doesn’t matter much what the Maori thought they were getting.”

                  Umm. Who had sovereignty prior to the treaty?

                  If you are going to argue ‘Treaty as contract about property rights’ then what iwi thought they werre getting in return for cedeing soverieignty is vitally important. Surely?

                  • Gosman …
                    14 August 2012 at 12:47 pm

                    The trouble for Maori is that under the British system, once they ceeded sovereignty to the Crown they pretty much lost the majority of power.

                    If they had a better understanding of Western systems of government they could have insisted instead on a formal constitutional arrangements whereby their rights could be better protected.

                    However they instead chose to hand over Sovereignty without these guarrantees so now we have a situation whereby their rights are only protected by statute and can be similarily removed via the Government at any stage.

                    That stated there is an moral obligation on the Crown to honour their side of the contract. What this means though has to be worked through politically.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      14 August 2012 at 1:07 pm

                      But hang on, if the treaty was breached then was soveriegnty legitimatly transferred? I’m asking wht you think , based on your commitment to right wing values, and contracts and what not. What political position do you take. Where do yuo start from, in answering the question; What should we do?

                    • Fran …
                      14 August 2012 at 1:11 pm

                      Problem with your argument is that Maori would argue that they never handed over sovereignty only governance.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      14 August 2012 at 1:11 pm

                      It would also be helpful if you could explain why you think “it doesn’t matter much what the Maori thought they were getting”, based on those same right wing principles. It’s kind of the crux of the debate really.

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 1:20 pm

                      Unfortunately Sovereignty is a little like virginity .Once you give it up it is kind of academic if the person who you gave it to screws you over on any promises made as you can’t really take it back.

                      There were possible ways that Maori could have taken control back though.

                      They could have bred faster and died later than the number of non-Maori arriving here. Then when the Crown handed the control of the Government over to representatives of the people they would have been in the majority and could control the State.

                      Alternatively they could have won any of the numerous Wars with the British during the 19th Century and declared themselves independent and got some other nations to recognise that and stop the British from trying to reclaim Sovereignty by force.

                      They failed to do any of these options which means they are limited to the moral persuassion argument. There is no legal option open to them.

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 1:23 pm

                      @ Fran.

                      Irrelevant. The British, and other nations, recognised what the Maori were signing away was their Sovereignty. That is all the British needed. It really doesn’t matter if the Maori say we only wanted to be ‘governed’ , (whatever that vague term actually means) by you.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      14 August 2012 at 1:30 pm

                      All very fascinating I’m sure, but

                      I’m asking what you think , based on your commitment to right wing values, and contracts and what not. What political position do you take. Where do you start from, in answering the question; What should we do?

                      based on your values, where do you, Gosman, stand in the debate?

                      Seems to me that if you don’t stand with iwi then your stated values aren’t worth a bucket of piss Gos, but that does leave the question of why you think it doesn’t matter what iwi thought they were getting.

                      You can step outside the argument and say, ‘oh it doesn’t matter because facts on the ground changed everything’; but, when you say that it has to be resolved politically, you pretty much have to step back into the argument and say what your values lead you to believe ought to happen.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      14 August 2012 at 1:33 pm

                      Though I must say it’s fascinating to see you come right and say that you view the treaty as a contract, and that one party to that contract’s views, (about the nature of that contract), just don’t matter.

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 1:47 pm

                      I’ve already stated where I stand on this issue in my reply to mickeysavage. You must have missed that.

                      My point about the Maori position is that when they gave away sovereignty the way they did then it really doesn’t matter what they thought they were protecting.

                      Thre only authority they have for protection of their rights is a moral case. They have been reasonably successful recently using this to get acknowledgment of past wrongs and a certain amount of compensation for the contract breech.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      14 August 2012 at 2:59 pm

                      Yeah, I read that, but I was after some clarity.

                      You made some pretty words about sanctity of contract, and how, on your honour as a right winger and by the hairs on your chinny chin chin, of course you think the treaty should be honoured.

                      And in the next paragraph, (and in this subthread), you introduced this idea that what iwi thought about what was/is in the ‘contract’ just ‘doesn’t matter’.

                      Now I’m just silly lefty of course, so I’m having a hard time understanding what ‘sancitity of contract’ means in a context where one parties beliefs about the contract don’t matter. That’s what I’m seeking clarity on. Is it a sanctified contract, cherished in the bosom of right wing thought, if one side can dictate what the other sides terms really are? Define this ‘contract’ for me.

                      And you point about moral force or what have you also alludes me. Pretty sure the Treaty can still be used din court. Pretty sure it carries legal weight. And even without the treaty, iwi have recourse to UN agreements that we have signed up to, fully enforceable by the courts in NZ.

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 3:21 pm

                      The two positions are not irreconcilable.

                      The Maori signed away their sovereignty. That is a given. It is implicitedly acknowledged by the rest of the world in that the NZ Government, as opposed to a collection of Iwi, is recognised as having Sovereignty over the country by international bodies and most other nations

                      The Maori chiefs who signed the treaty did not get their rights codified in any constitutionsal manner. They signed up for the British system of Government which, unfortunately for them, allows the Crown an awful lot a lee way in determining such matters such as rights.

                      Essentially they have only a moral case to be made for honouring the Treaty. In this they have my support for much of their position especially around property rights and protection and promotion of their culture and language.

                      I also don’t think their moral argument case extends as far as some in the Maori communtiy would like to think. I personally think they start losing the argument when they start pushing for rights that were unknown when the treaty was signed. Hence I believe a strong case can be made for acknowledgment and recompense for land confiscations but I am unsupportive of claims like the one over Water rights.

                      However I am even cool with them receiving such rights if they become transferable. If they are able to sell such rights on the open market then it might even be a good thing.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      14 August 2012 at 3:38 pm

                      Not seeing how ‘sanctity of contract’ informs that reasoning Gos.

                      Starting to think it’s a bit of a myth you like to tell yourself.

                      Try again perhaps.

                      How about start with this…

                      “The crown’s moral claim to sovereignty in NZ is based on …”

                      And remember, ‘sanctity of contract’.

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 3:42 pm

                      Morality and Sovereignty have very little to do with each other.

                      Tell me what is moral about Sovereignty being vested in a single individual by dint of an accident of birth and a very bloody history?

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      14 August 2012 at 3:54 pm

                      Nothing at all, which is why the english civil war happened. You may not have noticed Gos, but the monarch doen’t have much in the way of sovereign power. We have aconstitutional monarchy, rather than an absolute one.

                      Pretty convinced now that you aren’t one who should be lecturing iwi about the system they signed up for, or the manner in which they did so, or what any of that means today.

                      Also pretty sure you aren’t going to clarify the issue about what you mean by sanctity of contract either, with regard to what duty one party has to the other.

                      Oh well. Always figured it was not much more than pretty sounding words. Bit sad to have it confirmed in your case Gos.

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 4:06 pm

                      I think I have detailed my view of what it means around the contract that was signed being sacrosanct. This means that the Crown has a moral obligation to attempt to honour the nature of what was signed. The question becomes what was the nature of what was signed. I have a more limited view of this than perhaps you do.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      14 August 2012 at 4:24 pm

                      This means that the Crown has a moral obligation to attempt to honour the nature of what was signed. The question becomes what was the nature of what was signed. I have a more limited view of this than perhaps you do.

                      huzzah! We are possibly getting somewhere.

                      Now, when working out the nature of what was signed, is what iwi thought, and think today, relevant. You have previoulsy said that it is not important, or doesn’t matter. You can revise this if you like, as it seems to be based not on the sanctity of contract principle, but on a ‘facts on the ground one’.

                      That latter case amounts to, ‘we cheated you fair and square, and now we’ve got all the guns, so let’s renogiate and see what you can get’ which doesn’t seem too sanctimonious to me.

                      So how do we decide what the deal was?

                      I say we let the courts decide. My opinion, or yours, about whether or not it includes water or what-have-you are not relevant. If they want to avoid court, they can negotiate of course. The base position however, as far as I can tell, is that unless the crown can show that it took possession of something legally and explicitly, then it remains in native title. Seems logical, no?

                    • Fran …
                      14 August 2012 at 7:54 pm

                      Again rather large problem with your thesis. My understanding is that where a treaty is delivered in both the indigenous language and that of the colonisers then it is the indigenous version which has standing in international law so whether the British thought that Maori were handing over sovereignty is irrelevant. It is what Maori thought they were handing over that matters.

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 10:20 pm

                      Name me one country or international authority that disputes the sovereignty of the Crown in NZ then.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      15 August 2012 at 7:45 am

                      Tell me why those opinions should interfere in the sanctity of contract.

          • tracey 1.1.1.1.2
            14 August 2012 at 10:59 am

            you are right the maori are seeking to enforce their legal rights not ask for special treatment as frequently implied by those from the right.

      • mickysavage 1.1.2
        14 August 2012 at 8:47 am

        So Gossie

        If your family owned land for centuries until one day it was taken off them by force even though the taker had previously signed a contract saying they would not do this, would you feel just a little bit aggrieved? 

        • Gosman 1.1.2.1
          14 August 2012 at 8:58 am

          I don’t know why you are addressing this to me. I’m a firm believer in the Treaty being essentially a contract guarranteeing certain property and cultural rights in exchange for Sovereignty. Contracts and property rights are sacrosanct in right wing politics.

          The only real question becomes though what property rights were protected and the degree of sovereignty that was given up. I tend to take the view that the property rights being protected do not include modern day definitions of terms like Water rights and that the sovereignty the Maori passed overwas absolute. The British crown has the ultimate authority in terms of determining the law of the land.

          • tracey 1.1.2.1.1
            14 August 2012 at 11:02 am

            well, i think we would all agree the water was already here before the treaty of waitangi and just because its use has changed doesnt change rights. I still own my house even if someone can make more money turning it into a restaurant.

            You might want to read up on contra proferentum to get a better understanding of the british law around the treaty and interpretation.

            • Gosman 1.1.2.1.1.1
              14 August 2012 at 11:29 am

              Changing use does impact on rights. It would be foolish to argue otherwise. The State has altered all sorts of property rights over the years due to changing usage.

      • Draco T Bastard 1.1.3
        14 August 2012 at 9:30 am

        People on the right are more interested in economic freedoms.

        No they’re not, or, to be more precise, they want economic freedom for themselves while everyone else is forced to work to make them richer.

        • Gosman 1.1.3.1
          14 August 2012 at 9:46 am

          In your opinion.

          How’s your effort at overthrowing the status quo going?

          Have you done anything practical on this front? Did you at least think about the idea of setting up a website to attract like minded people? There must be at least half a dozen of you out there.

          • tracey 1.1.3.1.1
            14 August 2012 at 11:04 am

            a majority thought the earth was flat, so is your point that nothing must ever change if the majority think its right

            • Gosman 1.1.3.1.1.1
              14 August 2012 at 11:23 am

              No that is not my opinion. I don’t know why you would think it would be.

              • McFlock …
                14 August 2012 at 11:43 am

                swings and roundabouts, or pendulumous.
                       
                ’tis true we’re in a bit of an intellectual regression, like a miniNZ Dark Age, but I have faith in human nature. The pendulum will swing back to the left when people encounter enough ugly scrotes like Gos. 

                • Gosman …
                  14 August 2012 at 12:50 pm

                  The level of your intellectual arrogance is a wonder to behold McFlap. I wonder how you deal with your abnormally large ego. It must get in the way of certain normal human interactions a lot of the time.

                  • McFlock …
                    14 August 2012 at 3:49 pm

                    The arrogance is in someone who believes that history will suddenly change its practise of expansion:retrenchment of human rights and egalitarianism.
                          
                    Not that I’d expect you to know a damned thing about history.
                               
                    Even with the broadest regard for history, you are a fool. Several hundred years ago political and economic power was centred around a very small proportion of the population in any developed society you care to mention. Now, this power is much less concentrated, but becoming moreso again.
                         
                    For us to be swinging to the right, yet still be farther left than historical societies, we need to have swung farther left. So a pendulum analogy is apt. You fucking trool. 

            • Murray Olsen 1.1.3.1.1.2
              14 August 2012 at 4:13 pm

              It wouldn’t matter to right wingers if either a majority or a minority thought the world were flat. They’d go along with whichever view made their paymasters richer. They have absolutely no belief in the sanctity of contract either, unless they gain more from holding to the contract. The right has no values except for that which benefit the rich, with who is rich being defined more narrowly by the day.

          • Draco T Bastard 1.1.3.1.2
            14 August 2012 at 12:17 pm

            In your opinion.

            When you consider what actually happens under the policies that they want then no, it’s not opinion – it’s simple fact. Under their policies the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the poor are forced to work to make them richer as they have no other means of supporting themselves because the rich have control of all the wealth.

      • mike e 1.1.4
        14 August 2012 at 11:18 am

        Goose the people on the right are against economic freedom all they want is monopolies.
        And are racist because they can gather votes by taking the side of the bigoted impoverished . playing them off against each other.
        If Maori had their rights conferred instead of denied 172 years ago you would be picking on some other racial minority.

        • Gosman 1.1.4.1
          14 August 2012 at 11:25 am

          Once again you have a mindless brain fart on to the comments section of a post at The Standard. Your parents must be so very proud of you.

          • mike e 1.1.4.1.1
            14 August 2012 at 11:52 am

            Anything you say goosstepper.
            Doe that mean you parents weren’t proud of you.
            So you joined the neo liberal cult of the emotionally alouf.
            Quite happy to have young Kiwis go of and die in an unwinable war.

      • Polish Pride 1.1.5
        14 August 2012 at 12:50 pm

        Gosman – do not delude yourself Whether you are talking Right or Left in this system BOTH sides are about the ‘Redistribution of Wealth’.
        The Left through taxation to give to the poor and pay for any number of services they think should be provided.
        The Right through changes to Labour laws removing workers rights, coupled with a fairly open immigration policy that when combined (or even on their own result in downward pressure on wages
        or through Corporate welfare paid for via taxes
        Or through restructures of organisations that cull middle management and worker positions.
        All of these Right wing policies are about redistribution of wealth upwards to CEOs and shareholders.
        So do not delude yourself and say it is about wanting economic freedom.

        • Gosman 1.1.5.1
          14 August 2012 at 12:58 pm

          Do you have any actual evidence that this is their purpose or is this part of the giant right wing conspiracy that means only those in the know have the actual detail? I suspect it is merely your biased ideological view point only.

          • Polish Pride 1.1.5.1.1
            14 August 2012 at 1:19 pm

            You mean apart from living in our society for many many years and seeing it with my own eyes and working it out with an intelligent mind and the ability to think for myself.
            It is common sense – Do you think each side does it for fun!?! or just for the hell of it perhaps!?!

            Interesting that on understanding this I gave up Right vs Left a few years ago. I now prefer to run with a little concept I like to call ‘right vs wrong’ It seems to serve me pretty will in sniffing out BS in this world.

            What sort of propoganda is they do it cause the want ‘Economic Freedom’!?! They do it because they want more money, more wealth!

            • Gosman 1.1.5.1.1.1
              14 August 2012 at 1:44 pm

              So no real evidence then. Just your personal opinion.

              • Polish Pride …
                14 August 2012 at 2:02 pm

                What are you after? Perhaps you’d like to see the financials of companies that have employed such practices so that you can see the increase in profit. Perhaps you aren’t aware of the multi million dollar salaries now paid to CEOs.
                I forgot one too – offshoring company operations does the same thing.
                Do you actually believe there is no redistribution of wealth occuring when these activities occur happens.
                Why change labour laws, why remove Penal rates back in the day if not to reduce the cost of wages and provide more profit to the shareholder….
                Why have CEOs Salaries been able to increase so significantly in my lifetime.
                Before you keep going down this track I have been in business (still am). I have worked on projects for companies to enable them to do this so I am speaking from a little thing called personal experience with my observations.

                Do you have the ability to think for yourself? Here’s a concept for you to consider..

                Do you know that your TV works because you sit there and can observe that it is on, or is that just your opinion.

                Here’s another – you’d probably be a lot smarter if you got rid of it.

                • Gosman …
                  14 August 2012 at 2:07 pm

                  Increased profits are bad are they? Interesting idea. Since you think you have a handle on this I’m sure you will be able to inform me what the average profit growth for NZ based companies has been over the past few years. This would actually go someway towards providing evidence for your view point. Surely you aren’t making your claims without researching this.

                  • Polish Pride …
                    14 August 2012 at 2:22 pm

                    What so to help illustrate your argument you pick the years in which we are sufferring an economic downturn! Seriously! how dishonest can you get?
                    The average has nothing to do with it as some companies have employed these practices some have not. You would have to only look at the results from companies that have employed these practices. Or perhaps been in companies that have done this, or owned one yourself and seen the results first hand. Check, check.
                    I am not sure if you are purposely avoiding questions put to you such as

                    Do you actually believe there is no redistribution of wealth occuring when these activities occur happens?

                    Or whether you are purposely framing your responses to be void of ‘common sense’ on the issue but either way you are doing a stellar job.

                    Oh and if you do want an actual opinion on this matter. There is no better way tho understand these concepts than having been involved and having experienced them and their results first hand. But then I am sure you have at least some personal experience in this area.. right!! Please at least tell me you have experience! Or is it just ‘your’ opinion you are relying on to counter my argument..!?!

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 2:44 pm

                      So what years would you prefer to pick then? Give me a ten year range where you show sustained increase in return on Shareholder assets for NZ companies.

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 3:06 pm

                      Heck, you can even choose a dozen or so companies that have followed the approach that you abhore so much to compare. I suspect you will find it difficult to find many whose growth in Profits was much more than the overall economic growth of the country as a whole over a ten year period.

                    • Polish Pride …
                      14 August 2012 at 3:09 pm

                      I suspected you would avoid all my questions for you so I’ll take that as confirmation you have zip experience and we are running on your opinion alone for the counter arguement.
                      But how about we don’t go for a 10 year range how about we pick one company or better yet how about I give you a list to pick from. You go away and research them an come back and tell me what you find. But look at the companies evolution since it began not just 10 years.

                      Exxon Mobil
                      Walmart
                      Chevron
                      Conoco Phillips
                      General Motors
                      General Electric
                      Microsoft
                      Nike
                      Goldman Sachs
                      Monsanto

                      After all we’d want to look at the most successful companies in the world and the practices they have employed to prove or disprove the validity of this point wouldn’t we.

                      oh and pay particular attention to the oil companies who increased their profits during the economic downturn. Feel free to check out a few of the largest banks in the world while you’re at it.

                      Seems you have a lot to learn about statistics too. Statistics are often more interesting for what they don’t show more so than what they do. Always keep that in mind it will serve you well when presented with stats from the left, or when presenting stats from the right.

                    • Polish Pride …
                      14 August 2012 at 3:20 pm

                      Btw No one said I ‘abhore’ anything! It is simply that I undestand what both sides try to do and why the Left vs Right paradigm as a result can never actually solve any of the real problems society is faced with. Once people let go of Left vs Right only then will we start to make progress.

                    • framu …
                      14 August 2012 at 3:21 pm

                      polish – dont worry too much about trying to argue with gossamer

                      Despite any evidence you put up – it would never engage honestly anyway – it will always shift the goalposts and deny that the sky is blue

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 3:26 pm

                      I don’t think many of these are NZ companies. I thought you stated there was evidence for this in NZ. Is this not the case now?

                      BTW how does Microsoft exploit their staff to increase profits?

                    • Polish Pride …
                      14 August 2012 at 3:27 pm

                      Thanks for the heads up Framu – I particularly liked your use of the word ‘it’ in reference to this fruitloop 🙂

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      14 August 2012 at 3:35 pm

                      Polish Pride, There’s really no point in engaging Gosman – he really won’t change his mind no matter what evidence or argument you put to him and he won’t supply any evidence himself to support his own beliefs.

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 3:35 pm

                      So you’ve given up defending your frankly ridiculous asertion about increase of profits have you?

                    • Polish Pride …
                      14 August 2012 at 3:45 pm

                      “I don’t think many of these are NZ companies. I thought you stated there was evidence for this in NZ. Is this not the case now?”

                      Then you thought wrong Gosman. Left vs Right and the redistribution of wealth is happening in many places around the world. I never mentioned that the paradigm was soley at work in New Zealand. It is not.
                      But if you’d like an NZ example. My company has increased turnover twofold and has increased profit in the last three years. we have ‘restructured’ twice in this time.
                      If you’d like one that you can research try Infratil.

                      “BTW how does Microsoft exploit their staff to increase profits?”

                      By structuring their business offshore in a way that they pay significantly less tax in their country of origin resulting in a need to tax the working class or salary and wage earners at a higher rate allowing them to increase profits and pay CEOs higher salaries.

                      Google Microsoft restructure – the first 4 of 5 results talk about staffing ‘restructures’.

                      Then google Microsoft Offshore – the first two results talk about shipping jobs overseas.

                      I am beginning to think that you live in a bubble sheltered from how the world really works.

                      All so in case you haven’t figured it out yet it was game set and match a long time ago..
                      Go back home and play with the other kids on your block sunshine.
                      You are now just wasting my time!

                    • felix …
                      14 August 2012 at 3:52 pm

                      “I particularly liked your use of the word ‘it’ in reference to this fruitloop”

                      Yes, it has never produced any evidence that it isn’t a bot so according to its own rules it is fair to assume that it is one.

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 3:56 pm

                      I’m just testing how robust Polish Pride’s view point was DTB. The answer is not very robust at all.

                      Made any effort to take over the Government today?

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 3:58 pm

                      Pretty damning that you got shown up by a bot then felix. That kind of speaks volumes about your abilities, or lack there of.

                    • felix …
                      14 August 2012 at 4:00 pm

                      Yawn.

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 4:09 pm

                      Bravo. The most useful contribution you have made to a discussion in quite a while felix.

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 4:39 pm

                      Wow Polish Pride. I did take a look at Microsoft and it looks like their profit margin has been drifting DOWNWARDS over the past few years.

                      http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/chart#series=type:company,id:MSFT,calc:gross_profit_margin&zoom=10&startDate=&endDate=&format=real&recessions=false

                    • Polish Pride …
                      15 August 2012 at 9:07 am

                      Gosman – Yes, that would be as a result of the economic downturn. You know the one that the entire world living outside your bubble know about.

                      Profit going up or down alone is not cannot be used as the sole basis for determining whether or not companies have employed those practices to redistribute wealth upwards. Like I said look at their entire history see if they have employed the practices I talked about bubble boy.
                      Then when your done their look at the other companies I gave you including Infratil.

                    • Polish Pride …
                      15 August 2012 at 2:06 pm

                      Bubble go take a look at comment number 27….:)

      • blue leopard 1.1.6
        14 August 2012 at 2:24 pm

        Gosman

        “People on the right are more interested in economic freedoms.”

        Inequality creates lack of economic freedom for large numbers of people, so perhaps you should qualify this statement to make it more correct:

        “People on the right are more interested in economic freedoms for themselves regardless of anyone else”

        • OneTrack 1.1.6.1
          14 August 2012 at 8:46 pm

          People on the right tend to be more interested in freedom. People on the left, not so much.

          Fify

          • blue leopard 1.1.6.1.1
            14 August 2012 at 8:54 pm

            @OneTrack

            Bollocks, thats simply a form of propaganda you are spouting there.

            Correction:

            People on the right tend to be more interested in their own freedom regardless of the effect such has on others’ freedoms

    • Dr Terry 1.2
      14 August 2012 at 2:54 pm

      Now prepare for another Gosman controlled comments column! Suggest you look for something more relevant and interesting.

      • Dr Terry 1.2.1
        14 August 2012 at 2:57 pm

        The above was intended to appear at the top!

      • framu 1.2.2
        14 August 2012 at 3:28 pm

        i agree – c’mon folks. Not that hes new to this tactic – but gossamer is just doing a pete g.

        Ok sometimes it present just to good a target to resist – but as the saying goes – DNFTT

  2. ad 2
    14 August 2012 at 8:43 am

    Here’s a hope: The Orewa Speech vs Foreshore March Spring Tide – Neap Tide binge-purge cycle has gone. Key whistled as loud as he could to race during the Waitangi Tribunal water debate and fewer dogs came running.

    They still ran to him for sure. But fewer.

    I (hopefully) predict that this campaign will not have as much impact as it once would have.

  3. Dominic 3
    14 August 2012 at 9:02 am

    This whole thing has got me in a rage, but not for the reasons Ansell wanted. The way he says:

    “We should be saying ‘Look, show a bit more gratitude and get your hands back in your pockets, stop expecting money from other people, look to yourselves’,”

    With the same notions of the Kiwi/Iwi campaign, talking about “we” in a way which asserts pakeha as the dominant norm and Maori (or anything else) as different and the “other”. It’s like when people say “we are all New Zealanders” but what they really mean is ‘if you look like me you are’.

    What scares me is the fact that so many New Zealanders think like this and don’t know their own history. Resurrect Michael King!!

    • tracey 3.1
      14 August 2012 at 11:08 am

      Why is it so hard for some to understand the difference between enforcing/testing a legal right and asking for a handout.

      • Polish Pride 3.1.1
        14 August 2012 at 12:55 pm

        No problem with that statenment but more than that is going on. When I grew up with a very good dose of Maori culture I was told that Maori do not consider themselves owners of the land or anything else. They are the caretakers of it and it is more correct to say it is they who belong to the Land not the other way around. This was something I was very proud of. It is no longer the case as now it is all about ownership. This is however a product of the system we have today in my view.

        That said if all Maori were benefiting then I might be comfortable with it but most Maori do not see any benefits from Treaty Settlements. The Cororate Elite Maori see plenty…

        • Gosman 3.1.1.1
          14 August 2012 at 1:02 pm

          Maori caretakers of the land? Hmmmmm…. Not sure they did a great job of that considering the amount of forest cover lost under their ‘care’ and the fact they killed off the largest land animal in the country.

          • mike e 3.1.1.1.1
            14 August 2012 at 1:15 pm

            goosestepper read the title of the page.
            Maori have changed just like the rest of us have changed but you are still the fermenter of cynicism and racism just proving the title of this column.

            • Gosman 3.1.1.1.1.1
              14 August 2012 at 1:42 pm

              And you once again offer nothing to this debate except childish personal attacks on me.

              Perhaps you should learn some other ways of expressing opinions. In the real world attacking people personally tends to backfire and be unproductive (although you could get a job in a political campaign designing silly attack ads I suppose. They would be spectactularly laugable I suspect).

              • mike e …
                14 August 2012 at 1:51 pm

                So whats your angle goose offering nothing but racist forment and thinking that isn’t out of date you continually denegrate just about everybody who present hard facts including your own facts which have largely backfired.
                You are just a pathetic tory wind up Tr oll who can’t help himself but keep up boderline cyniscism.

                • Gosman …
                  14 August 2012 at 2:05 pm

                  Where have I formented any racist views? I take objection to unsubstatiated claims such as this.

                  Are you going to back your allegation up or is this another one of your baseless cowardly personal attacks?

                  • King Kong …
                    14 August 2012 at 2:18 pm

                    I would let it slide Gosman.

                    From the way he writes I think he might be retarded.

                    • mike e …
                      14 August 2012 at 2:22 pm

                      that would put me in your league KK although their might be hope for you yet as the missing link has been redefined. Neanderthals

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 2:26 pm

                      I suspect as much as well. Either that or he is being home schooled by some radical leftist family and has recently discovered the internet.

                      Edit: And as if on cue mike eeeeeee posts and provides evidence for the retard hypothesis.

                    • mike e …
                      14 August 2012 at 2:56 pm

                      Whats this personal attacks thats all you have goose.
                      Above you claim you aren’t a racist but always have to have a we dig
                      just enough not to offend any one but Maori.
                      Cyniscism is all your about nothing more nothing less.

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 3:01 pm

                      No evidence of any racist statements from me then? I thought not.

          • Polish Pride 3.1.1.1.2
            14 August 2012 at 1:29 pm

            The majority of deforestation came at the hands of Europeans..

            • Gosman 3.1.1.1.2.1
              14 August 2012 at 1:40 pm

              So? I don’t believe NZ European’s have ever made a case that their culture has a special affinity with the land and that they are the guardians of it. Individual ones may have but not the entire culture and certainly not in the 19th and early 20th Century where most of the forest cover was removed.

            • mike 3.1.1.1.2.2
              14 August 2012 at 4:57 pm

              You are new here PP but you’ll quickly identify the time-wasting conversation-hijacking wannabe provocateur trolls like Gosman and King Kong. Just as quickly you’ll realize that engaging them in reasoned debate is pointless, you’d be better off banging your head against a wall. Then you’ll see that any obligation you might have felt to response to their puerile taunts is purely illusory. Best is to ignore, or join the conversation somewhere else.

  4. ChrisH 4
    14 August 2012 at 9:03 am

    Having Louis Crimp involved will discredit it from day one. Did you see him on the TV with that female reporter? He shouldn’t be allowed out, IMHO, an opinion that Steve Braunias also appears to share… http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/opinion/steve-braunias/6989030/The-Secret-Diary-of-Louis-Crimp

    • shorts 4.1
      14 August 2012 at 9:32 am

      agree – Crimp is toxic… his involvement will enrage Kiwis – against the campaign and rightly so

      • mike 4.1.1
        14 August 2012 at 5:19 pm

        This guy? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10806938 He’s like a cartoon character called Mr B.Got or something.

        “Act’s president, Chris Simmons, said he disagreed with Mr Crimp on some areas but respected his right to have a view. He said he saw Maori culture as “part of our culture”.
        “One of the beauties of the Act Party is we believe everyone should have their say.
        “That’s his view.”
        Mr Simmons said the party would take Mr Crimp’s money again.
        Mr Banks, Act’s sole MP, did not respond to calls.”

        Good job Act, go ahead and grab another nail for your own coffin.

        Still, Simmons must know that his party will evaporate come 2014, so I guess why wouldn’t they squeeze another $125,000 out of this narcissistic racist wanker while they can? If this fool actually thinks that John Banks really gives a toss about ‘doing something about the Maaris’ when in fact his only role is licking John Key’s face, then he deserves to be strung along.

  5. chris73 5
    14 August 2012 at 9:07 am

    Didn’t think they needed a campaign, the Maori elite are doing a fine job of it themselves.

  6. ChrisH 6
    14 August 2012 at 9:20 am

    Oh yeah this too: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10807572 . I’m still not convinced that Crimp isn’t a made-up character, an incredibly dry pisstake in the style of John Clark, only more extended like the Yes Men or Ern Malley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ern_Malley : “Let’s create this red-neck businessman from Invercargill … no, Palmerston North … no, Hastings … oh alright Invercargill it is then!” Are Farrar and Ansell in on the Act (no pun intended?) OMG what if they are not?

    • tc 6.1
      14 August 2012 at 10:04 am

      Just another Hollowman so yes he’s is sort of made up of a shell with no substance beyond racism and enjoyment at creating division.

    • aj 6.2
      14 August 2012 at 11:22 am

      Unfortunately he is real, but I can assure you he is widely disliked in the far south because of the way he conducted business dealings a few decades ago.

    • weka 6.3
      14 August 2012 at 11:24 am

      Nah, Crimp’s been around for a very long time. People have posted in comments about his history before, if you want to look it up.

  7. TheContrarian 7
    14 August 2012 at 9:52 am

    I’ll point out that it is entirely possible to write about something uncritically without it being a tacit endorsement. I wrote an essay sometime ago about the rise of the Nazi party but that doesn’t make me tangentially supportive of the Nazi’s. 

    Read in that what you will re: Farrar (I haven’t actually read his post) but not critical =/= tacit endorsement. 

    • Te Reo Putake 7.1
      14 August 2012 at 10:03 am

      Wrong. Your essay was a critical analysis (I’m assuming that you got a pass mark for it). Farrar has simply posted the Ansell filth uncritically. I see that they have recruited Rodney Hide to run the lines from another angle, too.

      • TheContrarian 7.1.1
        14 August 2012 at 10:07 am

        You’ve read my essay? Weird considering it was never submitted anywhere and was written as a practice exercise for myself and myself only. Interesting.

        But writing about something doesn’t imply support or endorsement.
        A description of a persons position does not mean endorsement. 

        I don’t agree with the current asset sale program but i could easily write something uncritical about it. 

        • Te Reo Putake 7.1.1.1
          14 August 2012 at 10:22 am

          Weird that you don’t know what ‘essay’ means, TC. And even weirder that you spend your spare time writing uncritical essays about N@zi’s. 

          • TheContrarian 7.1.1.1.1
            14 August 2012 at 10:33 am

            I know what an essay is.

            I set myself a writing exercise before I started a semester on WW2. I was out of practice so gave myself a writing exercise. Not really that unusual. 

            But the point is you can write about something without taking a critical position on it. 

            • bbfloyd 7.1.1.1.1.1
              14 August 2012 at 11:27 am

              Your deliberate naivete would be charming little conti….But then, when reality is applied to your logic, that naivete turns to cynicism….

              Even those who inhabit that tory dream world so popular amongst conservative “intellectuals” understand that a review of a blatantly political tract can’t be “neutral” unless it is written as an educational exercise… Which would be an invitation to the students reading it to an analysis…

              David Farrar is NOT writing his pieces as an effort to educate…. He writes tory propaganda for the consumption of the kind of racist that supports national…..

              Insulting the intelligence of people on this site does nothing more than reinforce your already very low standing with thinking people…..

              I still have the number of that therapist i recommended to you earlier… The sooner you deal with your demons, the better, for all concerned…

      • tc 7.1.2
        14 August 2012 at 10:10 am

        Wondered were the yellow suited servant of the Hollowmen had gone, no surprises here.

        Maybe the MSM can ask him some searching questions on behalf of akl ratepayers about the true cost of amalgamation that him and Shonkey dumped on them and ran away leaving the likes of Brewer and Fletcher to undermine the Mayor as Jonny ‘washed up on the’ Banks missed out.

        • OneTrack 7.1.2.1
          14 August 2012 at 8:59 pm

          You mean the left wing mayor that can’t see anything that he doesn’t want to spend ratepayers money on?

        • weka 7.1.3.1
          14 August 2012 at 11:30 am

          And there we have our own PG supporting Ansell’s referendum.
           
          http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/08/critic_on_treatygate.html#comment-1008645
           
          Good on toad for getting in first.

          • TheContrarian 7.1.3.1.1
            14 August 2012 at 11:33 am

            If the is the article in question it would seems Farrar is actually commenting on the response by Critic, not the campaign itself which renders the mention of Farrar in this posting irrelevant. 

            • Gosman 7.1.3.1.1.1
              14 August 2012 at 12:54 pm

              Trouble is this is The Standard. That means many of the commentators can’t resist bringing Farrar into any topic. It could be about Rugby Union and I’m sure someone here will try and make the case that David Farrar is evil personified due to his position on the topic.

            • Galeandra 7.1.3.1.1.2
              14 August 2012 at 1:16 pm

              He’s also indicating tacit consent to its racism with his innocent musings about signature collecting and the downstream outcomes of a CIR:

              ” I guess the Greens will not be using taxpayer funding to hire staff to colect signatures for this one!

              But Labour and the Greens are insisting that a CIR trumps an election mandate. So if this CIR does happen, and gets majority support, will they adopt it as policy?”

              So he is giving uncritical acceptance of the project; ‘silence’ giving implicit ‘consent’. For him it’s just a laugh, a chance to poke borax at the Greens.

              I guess his racism is just like your facism, there but mostly below the radar.

              Be more self-critical with your essay writing.

          • mike e 7.1.3.1.2
            14 August 2012 at 1:31 pm

            I’ll have to give PG some credit their he stood up to the racist comments and explained himself quiet well good on you pete.

          • mike e 7.1.3.1.3
            14 August 2012 at 5:48 pm

            further down kb pg actually takes them apart Weka.I think or hope he was bringing their tactics out to show people their skulduggery.

        • felix 7.1.3.2
          14 August 2012 at 4:24 pm

          I think Farrar has pretty well covered himself by just re-publishing someone else’s article uncritically, which is quite different to, for example, re-publishing Ansell’s original announcement uncritically.

          (Which, incidentally, is exactly what our friend Pete George has done in the comment weka linked to above.)

  8. Vivienne 8
    14 August 2012 at 9:57 am

    We have a Human Rights Commission in NZ. We already see that NACT is breaching the Univeral Declaration on Human Rights which we as a Nation are charged to uphold.

    If this is true and they run it. What will be done to counter it?

  9. xtasy 9
    14 August 2012 at 9:58 am

    Well, I would not be quite so optimistic about this, just have a look at the support Rodney Hide already gets from the hard-nosed hate brigade for his attack on the Waitangi Tribunal, Maori Council and iwis:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10826283

    Something dressed up as that kind of “criticism” appears to get quite some appeal. Society is divided, many are not doing well, so a scape-goat is looked for and easily found.

    There is a hard core, but there are also others very willing to join in on finger pointing, name calling and even racist attacks. Same like “bene bashing”, it is sadly a sign of the times in broken NZ.

    • weka 9.1
      14 August 2012 at 11:24 am

      I liked this comment
       

      Lloyd (Takaka)
      09:24 AM Sunday, 12 Aug 2012
      Rodney Hide calling for an end to a gravy train – now I’ve read everything.
       
  10. prism 10
    14 August 2012 at 9:59 am

    Eddie – You’ve transposed letters – it’s Orewa.

  11. Jim Nald 11
    14 August 2012 at 10:04 am

    Some of our publicly respected NZers, from a range of ethnicities, and all progressive Parliamentarians should speak out and exhort us all to rise up to be better, to do better, echoing the words of our national anthem:

    “Let our cause be just and right
    …
    From dissension, envy, hate,
    And corruption guard our state,
    Make our country good and great

    … love and truth to [all]”

  12. Tom 12
    14 August 2012 at 11:20 am

    Is Crimp a caricature ?

    The Southland Times describes him as the ‘Godfather of Pokies’ in Invercargill.

    It raises the prospect of this campaign being funded by deep-pocketed gambling interests,
    who may themselves be proxies for others.

    It certainly deserves scrutiny, if not a Commission of Inquiry ..

    • aj 12.1
      14 August 2012 at 11:26 am

      He diverted pokie profits from one of his bars into his own pockets, when running as an ACT candidate in the…..1990’s? … I believe this was widely reported at the time. Need we say anymore?

      • aj 12.1.1
        14 August 2012 at 11:39 am

        From:

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/opinion/6161056/Editorial-A-bit-rich-Louis

        Mr Crimp is in no position to rail, with any integrity, against the foundation’s use of pokie proceeds.

        He has, himself, been one of the grandfathers of the pokies industry in Invercargill, albeit in rivalry with the trust. So his contempt can hardly stem from holding the machines themselves to be an intolerable social harm.

        Far from overbrimming with sympathy for the problems of pokie addiction, he wrote to our public opinion column in April referring witheringly to “the suckers who addict themselves to poker machines”.

        Much as he criticises the foundation for “making donations to doubtful charities” it has never been pinged for doing so. In fact, the ILT skites, and not without evidence, that it is regarded by governmental watchdogs as a role model for returning proceeds to the community.

        By shabby contrast it is Mr Crimp who has been caught up in notorious and inglorious misuses of pokie funds. This was in the 1990s, and involved decisions so imperious that they offended rules that were less strict than they are now.

        The Southland Pool Players’ Club, upon whose executive Mr Crimp had been a member, dispensed the money from pokies at one of Mr Crimp’s most high-profile establishments, Players’ pool hall, for a team of nine members, including Mr Crimp, to attend a pool competition in Australia. This was just part of what Internal Affairs inspectors described as “gross misapplication of proceeds”.

        Undaunted, as he so often is, by official disapproval, Mr Crimp had then stuck his hand out for Players’ pokie profits to help pay the 1998 election expenses of Southland Action, a group of candidates which he led into the Invercargill City Council election race.

        It came as scant surprise when Internal Affairs wanted money repaid, and stripped Players of its gaming licence.

    • Gosman 12.2
      14 August 2012 at 11:27 am

      You are the Green party personified and I claim my 100 dollars.

  13. KJT 13
    14 August 2012 at 12:09 pm

    Using social insurance/welfare recipients as New Zealand’s Jews is obviously not working as well as expected.

  14. KJT 14
    14 August 2012 at 12:29 pm

    As a socialist I disagree with birthright separatism.

    Apart from what should be everyone’s birthright in a country like ours. Enough to basically live on, feed, house and look after ones health and reasonably participate in society. A minimum income..

    Everything else should have to be earned according to ones contribution to society.

    This is closer to original Maori ideas of property, and European Ideas of the commons (Such as the “Charter of the Forest) than current arrangements.

    RWNJ’s, however are totally inconsistent in asking for “one rule for all”.
    They expect property rights they have gained in the “Ovarian lottery” (Hat tip to W Buffet) to be respected, but not those of Maori.
    When private individuals are allowed to make money out of what was formerly Maori “Commons” then Maori are quite correct in asking for a share. “One law for all”
    If we allow Pakeha to hang onto ill gotten inherited gains then it is a moral imperative to at least try and compensate Maori in some way for the loss of land, they owned.

    A better resolution to the FS and SB may have been to say all FS and SB is “commons”, with local Iwi rights of guardianship, and compensate both Maori and Pakeha owners accordingly. “Again One law for all”. Instead of a unilateral abrogation of Maori rights only.

    • Polish Pride 14.1
      14 August 2012 at 1:10 pm

      “Everything else should have to be earned according to ones contribution to society”

      As long as people hold onto this type of notion the society we live in will always have its have’s and have nots. The gap between the two will be determined by the system of the day and what it allows. Currently our system is geared towards ‘Profit and the accumulation of capital above all else’. Maori are simply now playing the game with the rules allowed as set down by the current system.

      “A better resolution to the FS and SB may have been to say all FS and SB is “commons”, with local Iwi rights of guardianship, and compensate both Maori and Pakeha owners accordingly. “Again One law for all”. Instead of a unilateral abrogation of Maori rights only.”

      Brilliant idea..!

      • KJT 14.1.1
        14 August 2012 at 1:30 pm

        With a minimum income, and preventing accumulation of wealth over generations, you will have haves and more haves, not have nots.

        That resolution for the FS and SB was not my idea. I think it came from either P Sharples or Hone. I’ve always thought it was a good way of sorting it.

        Note that Maori, historically, have only claimed property rights on such things when private interests were given property rights. Such as fish farms in the sounds.

        • Polish Pride 14.1.1.1
          14 August 2012 at 1:34 pm

          getting off topic but fail to see how you would prevent accumulation of wealth over generations in such a system..
          You already know my views on what the system should be …and probably best not to start again here 🙂

  15. captain hook 15
    14 August 2012 at 2:13 pm

    just another claque of addle pated noo noo heads who think the ability to aquire money is the same thing as being intelligent.
    ansell and crimp are just guys with big heads and very small dicks.

  16. blue leopard 16
    14 August 2012 at 2:37 pm

    Having viewed the amount of positive responses from the public to Holme’s obnoxious diatribe on this year’s Waitangi Day, compared to any response of horror over such racism, I do not feel confident that this approach of divide and rule re Pakeha and Maori won’t “work”.

    And if the intended approach this article speaks of is not illegal, it should be.

    • Gosman 16.1
      14 August 2012 at 2:41 pm

      Free speech should be illegal should it? Interesting totalitarian view of the world you have if that is indeed your view point.

      • Polish Pride 16.1.1
        14 August 2012 at 3:15 pm

        Speech that is designed to actively promote and foster hate….possibly yes.

      • blue leopard 16.1.2
        14 August 2012 at 3:17 pm

        Gosman

        I suggested that oppressive moronic disinformation should be illegal

        Where do you get the “free speech” bit from??

        • Gosman 16.1.2.1
          14 August 2012 at 3:28 pm

          Classic. I suspect you don’t even realise you shot yourself in the foot with that last comment.

          • blue leopard 16.1.2.1.1
            14 August 2012 at 3:36 pm

            Gosman

            Lol…so, you are unable to put up any real argument toward how the intended approach this article speaks should be illegal then, I take it?

            Not surprised. There isn’t one

            • Gosman 16.1.2.1.1.1
              14 August 2012 at 4:00 pm

              I don’t need to. It is you who obviously feels it should be illegal. I merely pointed out that this is a restriction on free speech. You confirmed that without even realising it which is the funny bit.

              • blue leopard …
                14 August 2012 at 4:12 pm

                Gosman

                I’m sorry, I am having problems following your logic; I am sure it probably makes sense to you, but to anyone else its…well….not apparent…

                You questioned whether free speech should be illegal.
                I suggested your comment was irrelevant

                There is no valid link between views that oppress and disinform others and the merits of protecting free speech.

                • UpandComer …
                  14 August 2012 at 5:59 pm

                  You are saying that speech that in your opinion is ‘oppressive moronic disinformation” should be illegal.

                  That is the opposite of free speech, and in branding speech ‘illegal’ you are anti-free speech.

                  And you are making Gosman’s point, over and over.

                  It’s funny.

                  • blue leopard …
                    14 August 2012 at 6:20 pm

                    UpandComer

                    Cheers for the clarification

                    On your terms I maybe making Gosman’s point over and over. However I make no connection with the rantings of morons with free speech at all.

                    Cheers to both you, UpandComer and Gosman, for providing me with the opportunity to repeat my point of view-being one of seeing no merit in disinformation that provides non-thinking punters the opportunity to justify their negative attitudes; when given half a chance to consider their attitudes they would realize they are based on misapprehension and misinformation-so many times; knowing that the more people familiarize themselves with a notion the more amenable to it they are likely to become to it.

                    Someone would have to come up with a good argument as to why anyone should have the right to speak messages promoting oppression, based simply on disinformation and a dearth of intelligence, in order to convince me that such as any merit. Neither you nor Gosman have achieved that.

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 9:49 pm

                      Serious couple of questions for you blue leopard.

                      First up – Do you wonder why noone has leaped to your defence on this subject?

                      It isn’t as if you wouldn’t have a lot of support for a view that might make me look like a dick. As you have probably noticed there are lots of people here who attempt to do that.

                      It is quite possible that people have decided that I am so ridiculous on this point that it isn’t even worth responding to. However usually when someone else hgas come in to make the same point as me then someone can’t resist commenting.

                      Secondly – Can you find someone, anyone here, who agrees with you that your idea isn’t a restriction on free speech? It shouldn’t be that difficult really.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 August 2012 at 9:58 pm

                      Nah Gos.
                         
                      It’s just that the deft way you ignored polish’s mention of hate speech indicates you don’t give a shit about discussing the topic.

                    • Murray Olsen …
                      14 August 2012 at 10:06 pm

                      I agree with you, Blue Leopard. What you may have missed is that what Gooseman actually has is a medical condition called Tourette’s, which is not illegal, but should be treated as soon as possible.
                      I have no problem with not allowing racist trolls to publish on a blog. Truth be told, they love it because they can go on the RWNJ sites and say what bullies we all are. It gives their sad lives meaning, at least in their eyes.

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 10:16 pm

                      Just to clarify here McFlack.

                      Do you agree with blue leopard about making this sort of thing illegal?

                      Quite a simple and straight forward question.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 August 2012 at 10:27 pm

                      Depends on whether “oppressive moronic disinformation” is roughly synonymous with “hate speech”.
                           
                      Hate speech is definitely moronic, is generally disinformation (where it isn’t an outright lie it’s usually using incorrect emphasis to mislead), and is definitely oppressive.
                           
                      Should hate speech be banned? Oh yeah. Same reason incitement to riot and (to use the US Supreme Court example) yelling “fire” to cause panic is banned.
                          
                      I joyfully await your spectacular failure to comprehend this comment. 

                    • Jackal …
                      14 August 2012 at 10:28 pm

                      blue leopard makes a good point that doesn’t really need to be supported… Although it should be said that Gosman, your argument that people should be free to say whatever they want is entirely idiotic! Likewise UpandComer saying blue leopard’s view that some speech should be illegal makes him/her anti free speech is completely stupid! Grow some brain cells please.

                      Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you should know that there’s some speech that’s against the law. Common limitations to freedom of expression are libel, slander, obscenity and incitement to commit a crime.

                      The Human Rights Act also limits freedom of expression about race, however this law is hardly ever upheld. It’s currently against the law to publish, broadcast or make a public statements ‘likely to incite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any group of persons on the ground of their colour, race, or ethnic or national origins’.

                      The continued racist disinformation that pervades many rightwing blogs and some mainstream media causes ill-will against people who simply don’t deserve it. Racism is a sickness, and the promotion of that sickness is illegal. In my opinion there’s no justification for trying to incite hatred against other people based on the colour of their skin. You’re being ridiculous to argue that racism is somehow justified Gosman.

                    • Gosman …
                      14 August 2012 at 10:34 pm

                      Excellent!

                      I find many of your comments “oppressive moronic disinformation”,(I believe that is the term being used here). I could even make a case for it in relation to you demonising an entire section of society based on your own political bias. I expect to see you supporting my attempts to ban your hate speech forthwith.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 August 2012 at 10:41 pm

                      That’s the shizzle! 
                                  
                      You had a complete brain freeze so decided to go “ooo, ooo no YOU are!”, did you? 
                           
                       I grant that I am frequently abrasive to the point of “oppressive”, but I think you might be evaluating the “moronic” and the “disinformation” through your own ego-tinted spectacles. 

                    • blue leopard …
                      15 August 2012 at 12:55 am

                      …Well I missed all that…

                      Jolly good show Gosman old chap.

                      What was your point?

                      You can’t credibly assert the comments you got in response to your questions were moronic nor misinformed (let alone disinfomation).

                      Quite the opposite

                      Sorry you feel oppressed, poor dear, yet hey! wasn’t it you who were supportive of oppressive messages toward others?…

                      … and…
                      …well….

                      I guess its not entirely inappropriate to suggest
                      ….whats good for the GOOSE is good for the gander…

                    • blue leopard …
                      15 August 2012 at 2:02 am

                      p.s

                      Had these informed people not responded and informed me of otherwise
                      I would have said that if spreading disinformative moronic oppressive messages came under the category of speech, I would have to say that I think that is f*ked and wouldn’t consider that I was for “free” speech without conditions.

                      I personally consider such DOESN’T comply with speech; more like belching or grunting-something that doesn’t require any intelligence and not a loss to one’s intelligent full expression not to emit

                    • Gosman …
                      15 August 2012 at 10:03 am

                      I’m loving this. All the lefties here who have fallen in to the trap of coming out as being anti-free speech.

                      I especially rate this contribution from McCluck as the best in terms of spectactularly missing the point

                      “…but I think you might be evaluating the “moronic” and the “disinformation” through your own ego-tinted spectacles. ”

                      Ahhhhhhh…. yes, yes I am.

                      How would this be any different to any other system set up to determine which speech is allowed or not?

                    • Polish Pride …
                      15 August 2012 at 10:26 am

                      I’m loving the way that you don’t have the intellectual capacity to formulate a decent response to my posts whether it be that hate speech should be illegal or that Right wing policy (just like left) is all about redistribution of wealth.

                      Generally when I start posting on a blog I like to find someone like yourself who can’t formulate a proper response and is often a tool towards other posters and make them soley for the purpose of my own amusement, ‘my biatch’. I haven’t been here long enough to decide who that should be, but so far you’ve done a stellar job of vying for that position bubbleboy.

                    • Gosman …
                      15 August 2012 at 11:13 am

                      Ah Polish Pride. I’m still waiting for you to respond to my actual EVIDENCE, (you know that thing you seem to have trouble providing), about Microsoft profit margin actually falling over the past 6 to 8 years.

                      Care to actually deal with facts rather than spouting your biased ideologicial opinions and claiming it is factually based?

                    • Polish Pride …
                      15 August 2012 at 12:05 pm

                      Bubble Boy – go and look at the response already provided or is your grasp of the english language the same as your experience in business – Nil.
                      again as I said many many many things affect profit and the amount of profit a business makes in a given year or decade does not change the fact that the practices are the wealth redistribution of the right!
                      How do I know – actual experience, thought about it, did it got the results.
                      Now go away in your little bubble and look at Microsoft and the practices they have employed since their start rather than selecting a few years to try and support your seriously flawed argument that you have how much experience to back up. Oh yeah thats right – None!
                      Then go and research the other companies I gave you.
                      Or would you just like me to post the increase in profit from those companies to blow your BS out of the water.
                      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You are a living breathing example of that Bubble boy, well done!

                    • McFlock …
                      15 August 2012 at 12:26 pm

                      lol.
                               
                      Gos, nobody here has expressed an opinion that is anti free speech any more than the US Supreme Court. 
                             
                      Or are you in favour of incitement to riot?  

                    • blue leopard …
                      16 August 2012 at 12:08 am

                      In summary:

                      “Someone would have to come up with a good argument as to why anyone should have the right to speak messages promoting oppression, based simply on disinformation and a dearth of intelligence, in order to convince me that such as any merit. ”

                      Gosman: fail

                  • Gosman …
                    15 August 2012 at 12:44 pm

                    @ Polish Pride. The data I provided on Microsoft was from around 2002 till just recently. It therefore covered a period well before the GFC.

                    As for me going away to research the topic, I’m not the one making up stuff to support a flimsy theory. If you want to be taken seriously then back up your views with hard evidence.

                    • Polish Pride …
                      15 August 2012 at 12:49 pm

                      Bubble boy the link I just provided you was from about three weeks ago. 🙂

                    • Polish Pride …
                      15 August 2012 at 1:19 pm

                      Oh and bubble Real world experience and real world examples as already provided trump your theory, because as established you have no experience or examples to disprove what I have told you and no sorry bubble sadly for you Microsofts profit going down doesn’t disprove it either, but feel free to keep trying. See its not about the amount of profit its about the activities you undertook to maximise what you did get…..another thing I have ‘experience’ with.

                      So lets recap shall we.
                      I have put forward a fact backed up by real world experience and real world examples.
                      You bubble… well lets see, you have well a theory (disproved by my real world experience and real world examples). and an internet link that doesn’t disprove my fact of right wing wealth redistribution.

                      I know its a hard lesson but take it on the chin, learn from it. Learn that it is best to know what you are talking about and that there’s no substitute for real world experience.
                      Unless of course something is totally rooted (like your arguement or more accurately lack of one) and you need to try something else. (also a little like our current system really).
                      As much as I’d love to continue this battle of wits with you bubble, you appear to be somewhat unarmed and it just wouldn’t be fair on you for me to do so.

              • Bastables …
                14 August 2012 at 10:47 pm

                Free speech . . . I do not think that word means what you think it means.
                In a civil society our laws make it illegal to conduct “libel” and “defamation.”
                A civil society should never have to bear a lier.
                I and NZ Law piss on your conflations of USA style free speech.

                For instance:
                “The principle that “tale-bearers are as bad as talemakers” was established in 1926 by Mr Justice Herdman at Auckland when a Gallipoli veteran, one Fox, was awarded £1,000 damages against W. Goodfellow, chairman of the New Zealand Cooperative Dairy Co. Ltd. The two disputants fell foul of each other over Dairy Board and Dairy Co. policy, and Goodfellow was found to have circulated fictions about the plaintiff’s war record, even going to the length of saying that Fox had been “reported twice as a spy”. This was a case in which the jury was asked to decide upon the question of malice. It returned a verdict of defamation with malice and, although the plaintiff had made no definite claim for special damage, he was awarded sums totalling £1,000 on three counts of malicious slander.”

                • blue leopard …
                  15 August 2012 at 12:58 am

                  @Bastables

                  +1
                  of a similar tone to how I would have answered Gosman had others not responded before me.

    • Polish Pride 16.2
      14 August 2012 at 2:53 pm

      Apologies for the long post but this is a letter I wrote to Pita Sharples and it seems to have some relevance to the topic if you look at the message within.

      Dear Pita

      When I was growing up as a pakeha kid in Levin I had a good amount of immersion in Maori culture. My mother worked with Mob members helping them get into work and away from the gang.
      I was given the Maori name Tahu after an older Maori lady my mother worked with went to the Maori elders to get permission to give me a Maori name. Growing up this was something I was immensely proud of.
      My Uncle was Maori and unfortunately I went to his tangi at the age of 4.
      My cousin (the uncle aboves son) was part Maori and was the closest thing I have had to an older brother.
      At Levin North Primary School we had to select a hobbie. Their were about 10 to choose from. I chose Maori studies.
      I grew up with Maori culture as a big part of my life. I grew up with the Maori myths and Legends, Maui, Rangi, Tane.

      We moved down south to Kurow in North Otago when I was 10 years old. There were a lot less Maori kids and families down there but I easily became friends with them.
      In form 2 the subject of the Treaty of Waitangi came up. Picture a scene with one Maori kid in the class and the rest rural pakeha kids arguing that the treaty of Waitangi was rubbish, that it was no longer relevant etc. etc. It was me that stood up and defended Maori and the Treaty of Waitangi. It was me that said to these kids, imagine if someone came along now and confiscated your family farm. Would you not tell your children and your childrens children what had happened and that the confiscated land was rightfully yours and should be returned!?! would it not still matter 200 years later if their had been no approptiate redress for what had happened!?!

      Growing up I have been on many Maraes, I have been to many Hangis.
      I was immensely proud of the Maori culture and my connection to it.
      One of the things I was most proud of about Maori was when I was taught that Maori were custodians of the Land, of the Lakes, of the rivers and of the sea. That it was they who belonged to the land and not the other way around. To me this was what made me most proud of my connection with Maori and the fact that the Maori culture shaped the man I am today.

      Over the years however things have changed. I am still pakeha, but what has changed is that time and time again the message is driven home to all in Aotearoa and abroad that Maori culture belongs to Maori and only Maori, that the Maori language belongs to Maori and only Maori, that the seabed, that the lakes, the mountains and the rivers belong to Maori and only Maori.
      Because of this, the strong beautiful connection that I have had with Maori the Maori culture has been destroyed, I have been made to feel not worthy. I have been made to feel like an imposter, a fake, a charlatan, like I have no business having such a connection. After all I am not Maori, I am Pakeha.

      My message to you Mr Sharples is this.

      If you want to save Te Reo give it to everyone. Make it something that belongs to all New Zealanders, not something that just belongs to Maori.

      If you want the Maori culture to be stronger than ever, give it to all New Zealanders. Make it something that all New Zealanders can feel part of and have become part of them just like I once did. Not something that just belongs to Maori

      As far as the Land and the rivers and the lakes and the seabed go. Do not just claim it for Maori, Instead claim it for all New Zealand to respect, care for and be a custodians of.

      Pakeha are wrong on so many things Mr Sharples. Do not make the same mistakes that Pakeha are making.
      I do not expect you to listen to me, after all I am only Pakeha. I only hope you will.

  17. Michael 17
    14 August 2012 at 4:22 pm

    IMHO, Ansell’s just staying warmed up for NACT’s 2014 campaign by burning a shitload of Crimp’s money. Brash’s 2004 Orewa speech, and Ansell’s follow up work, turned the tide in NACT’s favour and spooked Aunty Helen’s lot into stopping all work on the social justice front, including Treaty matters. The right seems to have calculated that playing the race card keeps it in power. From what I can see, I think they’re right. If there was an opposition party worthy of the name, NACT might not have such a walkover victory. Does anyone know what became of the Labour Party? Did they just disband or something?

    • Pascal's bookie 17.1
      14 August 2012 at 7:09 pm

      The well is dry Michael.

      They got the gang back together and gave it the old school push in the last election with ACT. Ansell crowing about 40% at KB, and BigBruv in comments here predicting at least 10%. Nothing happened. It sunk like a uranium turd, with everyone looking on from the shoreline saying peeuw between the lulz.

      Ansell is now ranting about cabals of elite politicians and academics who ought to go to jail for fraud. He’s talking about mainstream historians and people like Bolger there I assume, though he’s been a bit coy.

      this will go nowhere, and the National party will have nothing to do with it, and if ACT force their hand, ACT will get put in its fucking place. The dunces corner.

  18. mike e 18
    14 August 2012 at 5:15 pm

    Goose tr oll of the day Cynicism + a smidgeon of racism what you have is an act party fundamentalist who has proved exactly what they are up to 1% Trying to over influence the other 99%.
    But as per usual its only galvanising opposition to their tactics.

  19. UpandComer 19
    14 August 2012 at 6:01 pm

    Did the Greens think they were the only ones who could find a hot button issue?

    The Greens and implicity Labour can’t criticise this move. If it succeeds, all their blather about ‘mandates’ mean they will have to accept it.

    Seriously, it should be taxpayer funded too, just like the Green’s ‘referendum’.

    • Pascal's bookie 19.1
      14 August 2012 at 6:35 pm

      Did the Greens think they were the only ones who could find a hot button issue?

      I doubt it. Haven’t seen anyone saying so. Ansell is entitled to try and get a petition on whatever dan fool thing he wants within the CIR rules. It’ll be interesting to see how his wording is recieved.

      The Greens and implicity Labour can’t criticise this move. If it succeeds, all their blather about ‘mandates’ mean they will have to accept it.

      Have they criticised ‘this move’? I’m sure they’ll criticise his position and his laughable arguments, but that’s not the same thing. Likewise, based on his laughable arguments it’s perfectly valid to criticise him as being an idiot. Also, wrong about pretty much everything, and racist to boot. According ot your logic, all those criticisms will pplay implicitly to national and ACT. I see Rodney Hyde had an interesting newspaper piece on the Treaty recently. Collusion? Certainly a striking coincidence.

      Seriously, it should be taxpayer funded too, just like the Green’s ‘referendum’.

      Seriously? If ACT wants to spend some of its leaders budget helping him out, go for it. Why not?

      • toad 19.1.1
        14 August 2012 at 8:19 pm

        What’s the bet Ansell actually drafted Hide’s HoS op-ed? Hide may have toned it down a bit before submitting it, but it is still full of the racism for which Ansell is becoming renowned.

        • Pascal's bookie 19.1.1.1
          14 August 2012 at 8:34 pm

          yeah nah.

          The style is pretty much Rodney through and through. And he’s not stupid enough to let someone as unstable and disloyal as Ansell have something like that over hm.

          Reckon it’s more likely that they’ve talked, and most likely that some of the people Ansell has been hitting up for cash money have had a word with Hide. It’s not that big a circle of people is it?

    • fatty 19.2
      14 August 2012 at 6:37 pm

      “Did the Greens think they were the only ones who could find a hot button issue?”

      Good try…but the Green’s ‘hot button issue’ is not aimed at protecting cultural hegemony and racist ideals. Make the link if you want, but its a pretty ignorant attempt.

    • felix 19.3
      14 August 2012 at 6:39 pm

      So weird! That’s just like what Farrar said, but a bit fewer eloquent.

  20. starlight 20
    14 August 2012 at 6:02 pm

    The nats may be playing kiwi’s off against one another,but here is the rub, the 3 news poll just
    out says the the nats are down to 44% labour up to 32%, there is a rise for the greens too,
    so while the nats play their kind of sport,many kiwi’s read between the lines and strip them
    of gold.

  21. Michael 21
    14 August 2012 at 7:10 pm

    I think you’ll find this is why NACT is playing the race card now. Economic performance (aka “growth”) is down, unemployment and social tensions are up. NACT’s poll ratings are sliding and they haven’t got any fresh ideas (I don’t think they had any in the first place). What else is there to do but stir up race conflict, especially now that no one cares whether or not we play sport with South Africa?

  22. starlight 22
    14 August 2012 at 7:41 pm

    The poll above i posted was from roy morgan taken from july 23 to august 5th,so
    it discounts the other polls.

  23. Steve Wrathall 23
    14 August 2012 at 7:43 pm

    I fully support the Treaty, the 1840 one, not the fake one that was invented in the 1980s that contains the word “partnership”.

    “The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty”

    What do you not understand about that?

    • Pascal's bookie 23.1
      14 August 2012 at 7:56 pm

      Here’s the other clause, in the language recognised as the authoritative version:

      Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu – ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua – ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.

      Read up on what it meant. There are lots of sources.

      • Steve Wrathall 23.1.1
        14 August 2012 at 8:27 pm

        Yes-their property rights.

        Third article
        In the Māori text, the Crown gave an assurance that Māori would have the Queen’s protection and all rights (tikanga) accorded to British subjects.

        That is equal rights.

        Read in its totality the Treaty clearly sets up one sovereignty with all citizens having equal rights. Modern revisionism and selective cherry picking of 3 ambiguous words in the Maori version do not alter this totality. Many of the signatories spoke good English anyway, and would have understood the English version, or did not sign immediately and had plenty of time to enquire as to the overall intent.

        In business terminology, it was a merger, not a partnership.

        • Pascal's bookie 23.1.1.1
          14 August 2012 at 8:48 pm

          What’s ambiguous about ‘chieftainship’?

          And if you’re gong to talk about cherry picking, you can’t really just gloss over the second article and pretend tino rangatiratanga just means what you conveniently think it means.

          I mean, if it’s fair for you to do that, then it’s equally fair for iwi to gloss over the first article and say that ‘Sovereignty’ is ambiguous and so therefore we are are all one people under tino rangatiratanga.

          • North 23.1.1.1.1
            14 August 2012 at 11:20 pm

            What’s all this “look and listen to the oracle” mock academic crap from Wrathall ?

            Did Maori sign for “merger” which raped and plundered in short order of the ink drying ?

            Did Maori sign for “merger” with European disease which nearly wiped them out as a race ?

            Did Maori sign for “merger” with the bottom of the heap in just about every measure 170 years on ?

            Hey, Wracist Wrubbish Wrathall, Tame’s great x 8 grandfather didn’t sign at all.

            Bloody laughable is this from WWW: “Many of the signatories spoke good English anyway, and ‘would have’ (???) understood the English version, or did not sign immediately and had plenty of time to enquire as to the overall intent.”

            Where, idiot ? Paihia CAB ? Or Russell McVeagh downtown Waitangi ? Free waka parking for new clients ?

            My God, Wright Wring Wracist Wrubbish sure talks some steaming kaka !

  24. RedBaron 24
    14 August 2012 at 8:08 pm

    Maybe we need a “be nice to Gos night” . He and other right wingers must be feeling very fragile having watched Christchurch central city property owners being stripped of their land like it or not.

    They must be very afraid of ending up in the same waka.

  25. AmaKiwi 25
    15 August 2012 at 12:51 am

    The Treaty is only an issue because the statistics for Maori are so appalling.

    Whatever one may think about a document signed 172 years ago the facts are clear: a group of NZ citizens are worse off than the average by every measure of wealth and well-being: income, unemployment, health, imprisonment, etc., etc.

    I resist the liberal temptation to say, “I know how to fix it.” From my life experience I think the answers have to come from the people who are the Maori underclass. What the better off can do is help them implement their own solutions. Transfers of land and money are not solutions to social problems, no matter how valid or invalid the historic claims might be. But the right to equal opportunities and well-being is an infinitely valid grievance.

  26. blue leopard 26
    15 August 2012 at 2:07 am

    Eddie

    “… Although I doubt that the mainstream media will run the level of overtly racist material that Ansell is hinting at when he refers to when he says that he wants to “enrage the public”. That’s not just because media bosses have some standards or because of the BSA and press council consequences – it’s because New Zealanders aren’t as racist as Ansell would like us to believe, or as racist as we once were, and media that run racist ads risk losing customers.”

    I don’t agree with this. I find it overly idealistic, wishful thinking (at best) and not grounded in what continues to occur in NZ. There is a lot of racism here, people will be quick to agree with any moronic messages this team convey and NZ TV will do whatever its bosses, (which appears to be the National Government), tell them to do. If any complaints are laid, I’m sure they will “find a way around” them.

  27. Polish Pride 27
    15 August 2012 at 12:40 pm

    Oh and Bubble boy

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-19/microsoft-profit-tops-estimates-as-companies-upgrade-computers.html

    Also in case you don’t microsoft has bought a lot of companies in recent years. Companies like Skype and Adquantive among others. This costs money, it increases overall revenue but decreases profit. So that will be one of the reasons for the decrease in profit. Understand? or do I need to type slower for you?
    Either way
    Lesson for the day for you
    Amount of profit going up or down has no bearing on the fact that companies employ right wing wealth redistribution tactics to funnel money upwards. If anything, a company who finds itself in a position where its profits are going down is sooner or later probably going to look to redistribute wealth, probably through a restructure.

    pwned again bubble, pwned again….