tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post695602537822341761..comments2024-03-18T17:17:00.423+13:00Comments on Not PC: One Law For AllPeter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-6634027292350983852013-06-13T08:24:22.646+12:002013-06-13T08:24:22.646+12:00Why has it taken so long, go for it!Why has it taken so long, go for it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-86605770624348742962013-06-07T18:50:46.161+12:002013-06-07T18:50:46.161+12:00At long last a party with the gonads to say enoug...At long last a party with the gonads to say enough because this is the only way this country will get ahead I have said this for years and I know many people agree and I hope they stand up and be counted, Its not racist its about been fair for all. you have my vote.<br />K AdlingtonAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11672472682924393008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-68613105612002317492013-06-06T17:09:27.774+12:002013-06-06T17:09:27.774+12:00@Den: In your defence, now I've looked, that t...@Den: In your defence, now I've looked, that tab doesn't seem to work quite right, does it.<br /><br />Will look at the "revisionist" version on the site ASAP--in the meantime, can you pint me to a version you would rely on?<br /><br />I would also, and genuinely, like to know more about the "fairly distasteful blog" you skimmed earlier...Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-24087825237614523132013-06-06T00:00:45.312+12:002013-06-06T00:00:45.312+12:00Mea culpa, I clicked on the President and Candidat...Mea culpa, I clicked on the President and Candidates tabs, without testing clicking on the People tab itself. Indeed, the steering committee names are there, apologies for suggesting otherwise.<br /><br />I hope, PC, that you don't endorse the revisionist version of Parihaka that is up on the site, people are going to judge you on the company you keep. <br /><br />DenMTDenMTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-54818453341540206322013-06-05T23:40:08.006+12:002013-06-05T23:40:08.006+12:00"Efforts to assert individual liberty and com..."Efforts to assert individual liberty and common and equal rights would be better placed on establishing stronger constitutional protections for such in NZ."<br /><br />That is not something that the parliament can do, since it asserts that it is NZ's "supreme law making body", and it denies the source of actual constitutional authority. You won't get workable constitutional protections until the role of truth in law is understood.<br />UglyTruthhttp://www.actsinjunction.info/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-7655810450189815572013-06-05T18:49:12.118+12:002013-06-05T18:49:12.118+12:00"No" Not while it has that name. I have..."No" Not while it has that name. I have too much respect for our language. And the word "for" is not spelled "4".<br /><br />Also, not till I know that they aren't National Front in drag.<br /><br />Also, the website should not be dressed in "Greens" colours.Johnnynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-39984161997287029882013-06-05T18:20:06.709+12:002013-06-05T18:20:06.709+12:00"abolishing the Maori seats without Maori con...<i>"abolishing the Maori seats without Maori consent is reneging on a deal, and clearly racist"<br /><br />hat deal please? and why is it racist to renege on it?</i><br /><br />The deal was to provide for representation they didn't use to have.<br /><br />Now that we have universal suffrage and MMP most people recognize everyone has representation and the Maori seats aren't required.<br /><br />But unilaterally making such decisions about a deal is poor practice (and unilateral contract rearrangements is something libertarians ought disapprove of).<br /><br />It's racist because the only reason anyone worries about it is because of the race distinctions involved and the will to impose a unilateral decision is using a majorities influence against a minority delineated on racial lines.<br /><br />The Maori seats aren't important, they will likely wither, they have little influence in our MMP environment, there's nothing to be lost waiting on Maori agreeing to their removal.<br /><br />Efforts to assert individual liberty and common and equal rights would be better placed on establishing stronger constitutional protections for such in NZ.<br />Fentexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-87920869968334064472013-06-05T14:31:06.476+12:002013-06-05T14:31:06.476+12:00@Graeme: "I have no problem with having high ...@Graeme: "I have no problem with having high Parliamentary thresholds for proposing amendments, or requiring high proportions of states or equivalent to back a change before it takes effect, but that simply isn't what is being discussed."<br /><br />Well, let's go back to what *was* being discussed, and you seem to have ignored, i.e., that the reason for setting the bar so high is I suspect intended to rule out any possible introduction of proposals arising from the so called "constitutional conversation"--which is the biggest constitutional issue in the works at the present time.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-65519526037764465362013-06-05T13:41:11.620+12:002013-06-05T13:41:11.620+12:00I have no problem with having high Parliamentary t...I have no problem with having high Parliamentary thresholds for proposing amendments, or requiring high proportions of states or equivalent to back a change before it takes effect, but that simply isn't what is being discussed. But if we are talking about this, we need to understand what we are saying.<br /><br />The difference between majorities in the state legislatures of 75% of states and 75% majorities in a referendum is massive.<br /><br />The equivalent to the US system, moved to New Zealand, and applied to public referendums is not a 75% majority in a referendum, but more like a majority in 75% of electorates, or 75% of council areas, or something like that.<br /><br />If we're to do it, and just have a single simple referendum process, I would be fine with 75% majority in Parliament to propose amendment and 60% majority at referendum, but requiring a 75% vote at a referendum is very different from that.Graeme Edgelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03928755583921638414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-28588316183041988912013-06-05T10:52:49.855+12:002013-06-05T10:52:49.855+12:00@Graeme: As the first and still the most Lockean, ...@Graeme: As the first and still the most Lockean, the US Constitution is still the Grandaddy of all constitutions. It requires (essentially) that successful constitutional amendments be proposed by at least two-thirds of both houses, and ratified by the legislatures of least three-fourths of the states.<br /><br />As you might have noticed, we don't have state legislatures here. Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-55180688757207923972013-06-05T10:21:49.396+12:002013-06-05T10:21:49.396+12:00it is a "crazily high number"--except th...<i>it is a "crazily high number"--except that it has both precedent and sense: because a constitution only works well when it has widespread public support, so if three-quarters of folk who choose to vote DON'T support it, what possible argument is there to impose it?</i><br /><br />Where is the precedent?<br /><br />Australian Constitutional Amendments require a majority, and a majority in a majority of states.<br /><br />Irish constitutional amendments require a bare majority. So too, Swiss (I think, not sure if there's an Australian-style double majority needed in the cantons).<br /><br />American constitutional amendments don't even require a referendum. Nor do Canadian. Nor Japanese. Many American states do require or allow a public vote, but I don't know of any so high as 75% (two-thirds is common).<br /><br />South Africa allows 60% at a referendum.<br /><br />75% is figure often used for Parliamentary votes amending the constitution, but can you name a single country or state that has that as a referendum requirement?Graeme Edgelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03928755583921638414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-60520304627030051332013-06-05T07:17:04.074+12:002013-06-05T07:17:04.074+12:00DenMT:
"Then you might want to reconsider yo...DenMT:<br /><br />"Then you might want to reconsider your contention that "...some names from the party's steering committee appear under the site's 'People' tab". Because they don't."<br /><br />Errr... have you tried clicking it, genius??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-5049429281813075052013-06-04T21:09:24.952+12:002013-06-04T21:09:24.952+12:00DenMT, the main target here is not 'targetted ...DenMT, the main target here is not 'targetted [welfare] programmes' but targetted political rights or, targetted political priviledge. I guess you'd first need be convinced why those are generally a bad thing & why its opposite a good thing. <br /><br />Modern NZ is multi-cultural. Its historical identity is of Maori tribes integrated into a British colony, then maturing into an independent nation state, attracting folk from all parts of the planet, operating under the lines of British law & governance. (And the British way was quite different to the European. Check out French or Dutch colonies.) <br /><br />Looking at where we are now, & forward, a government constrained to somehow reflect a 'bi-cultural' state - by special laws, funding, targetted programmes, what have you - will actually be in constant friction with this country's real people & stuck on the wrong side of history. It will be anachronisitic. Is that what the people want? The future calls. <br /><br />But perhaps the sinister & shadowy figures behind all this have some other master plan.Sam Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09035978404256500568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-12342876099444424852013-06-04T19:36:53.434+12:002013-06-04T19:36:53.434+12:00Gregster: that Maori are a 'savage tribe' ...Gregster: that Maori are a 'savage tribe' in need of 'reverse-apartheid' is not exactly what I would call a logical distillation of my post above. Perhaps in some circles.<br /><br />I would have less problem believing that the 1LAW4ALL gang had simple equality as their main driver if they weren't so demonstrably anti-Maori on their website (see the dreadfully written article on Parihaka, where the 'holocaust on farm animals' is discussed) and they would seem a lot less sinister if at least one of their number would put their name to the website.<br /><br />DenMTDenMTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-13102642461117455692013-06-04T19:26:54.287+12:002013-06-04T19:26:54.287+12:00DenMT: "suggests a world-view whereby Maori c...DenMT: "suggests a world-view whereby Maori culture is removed from the public sphere and 'European' culture given primacy"<br /><br />You reinforce a poor stereotype that the Maori doesn't qualify as an individual, but as a savage tribe to be given special reverse-apartheid rights. gregsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04786701115887458801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-17522800276465976172013-06-04T19:15:06.115+12:002013-06-04T19:15:06.115+12:00Never said 'racist', did I, young PC. Stil...Never said 'racist', did I, young PC. Still, whatever fits the stereotype for a dissenting view! Certainly intolerant. I have no problem with New Zealand's legislation ensuring equal treatment for all, as little problem as I have with targeted programmes to help those groups who are clearly marginalised and in need of assistance in order to get to the same level as what we as a society can agree as a common baseline. That you and I have wildly differing views on the legitimacy of a welfare state is hardly a shocker after all the years I have intermittently posted on this blog and no further time needs to be wasted on it.<br /><br />I do however think that the way the policies have been articulated suggests a world-view whereby Maori culture is removed from the public sphere and 'European' culture given primacy ('End the official state promotion and enforcement of divisive bi-culturalism' = Endorse monoculturalism). In my view, that is intolerant. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the lion's share of Kiwis would not have a problem describing NZ as a country whose cultural identity consists of elements from both founding cultures, so 'bi-culturalism' is in fact an essential part of life in NZ, as much as a tiny part of the internet would have it otherwise.<br /><br />Then a couple of points of order: accusing me of making things up is a bit on the nose, when I simply respect the right to privacy of someone who apparently wishes to remain private. And I certainly wouldn't want to make out that the person who can be simply identified with minimal googling is the 'founder' of this fledgling party, however she is certainly a prime mover. And as mentioned, her internet activity is likely to preclude any credible involvement in a political endeavour.<br /><br />Then you might want to reconsider your contention that "...some names from the party's steering committee appear under the site's 'People' tab". Because they don't.<br /><br />DenMTDenMTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-19069416461029432482013-06-04T18:39:46.240+12:002013-06-04T18:39:46.240+12:00An excellent initiative & a simple plan to end...An excellent initiative & a simple plan to end the silliness. Well done. <br /><br />Strange the thinking that colour-blind law be called 'intolerant.' I too would like to hear the argument. <br /><br />Sam Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09035978404256500568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-78576705470080536542013-06-04T13:14:08.679+12:002013-06-04T13:14:08.679+12:00ha, that's weird - I posted my question to Fen...ha, that's weird - I posted my question to Fentex before PC's comment appeared.<br /><br />I was wondering why noone had called him on itthe drunken watchmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-36167549382657648722013-06-04T13:04:29.810+12:002013-06-04T13:04:29.810+12:00Fentex
"abolishing the Maori seats without M...Fentex<br /><br />"abolishing the Maori seats without Maori consent is reneging on a deal, and clearly racist"<br /><br />what deal please? and why is it racist to renege on it?<br /><br />the drunken watchmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-49512910170814594442013-06-04T12:14:53.328+12:002013-06-04T12:14:53.328+12:00@Greig: No, not registered, simply launched/ing.
...@Greig: No, not registered, simply launched/ing.<br /><br />@Sam: In the current inverted environment, any party calling for colour-blind law is immediately going to be called racist. (Just witness young Den, above.) So it makes sense for to explicitly label themselves as non-racist.<br /><br />@Fentex: The "deal" on Maori seats was established only because to vote in the 1860s required ownership of property, so these seats were set up as an interim measure, initially only for five years, until Maori title was resolved in the Maori Land Court. In any case, they should have expired in 1893 when universal suffrage was introduced, but were kept on because of vested interests within ruling parties.<br /><br />@Den MT: I do find it delightfully ironic that you consider colour-blind law to be "intolerant." I'd love to see you actually try to make that case, instead of simply assuming your conclusion.<br /><br />@Graeme: Yes, it is a "crazily high number"--except that it has both precedent and sense: because a constitution only works well when it has widespread public support, so if three-quarters of folk who choose to vote DON'T support it, what possible argument is there to impose it?<br /><br />In any case, I suspect the policy as written is intended to signal dismay at the the outcome they expect from the so called "constitutional conversation."<br /><br />Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-4598602497401951882013-06-04T12:01:37.694+12:002013-06-04T12:01:37.694+12:00Since some names from the party's steering com...Since some names from the party's steering committee appear under the site's 'People' tab, I have to say there's been some very poor detective work going on here--highlighted, I'd suggest, by Den MT whose "five minutes of internet sleuthing" consists of making things up.<br /><br />That said, the primary first question is surely not "who are these people" but "what are their policies"? So my primary question is still plain: would you support a party with these policies.<br />Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-39634924456450499442013-06-04T11:46:16.870+12:002013-06-04T11:46:16.870+12:00DenMT: Interestingly, they're not even registe...DenMT: Interestingly, they're not even registered... http://www.elections.org.nz/parties-candidates/registered-political-parties-0/register-political-parties-0Greig McGillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07177898101169161237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-67589861400009814472013-06-04T10:35:28.324+12:002013-06-04T10:35:28.324+12:00Ensure that there is no constitutional change with...<i>Ensure that there is no constitutional change without the support of three quarters of those voting in a referendum.</i><br /><br />That's a crazily high number. I doubt you get get that level of support for anything remotely controversial.<br /><br />I doubt you could get it to support, for example, stripping all reference to the principles of the treaty from legislation, or abolishing Maori seats, or the Waitangi tribunal etc.<br /><br />I assume that whoever wants a rule that constitutional change requires a 75% vote at a referendum thinks things are perfect as they are, because with that rule, nothing big is going to change.Graeme Edgelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03928755583921638414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-78313218451056195862013-06-04T09:29:33.437+12:002013-06-04T09:29:33.437+12:00I'm not going to 'out' anyone, as repr...I'm not going to 'out' anyone, as reprehensible as I might find their views on the 'browning' of NZ or their viewing of Maori as unemployable based on their supposed racial characteristics, but certainly if my suspicions are correct then the organising force behind this party has buggered any shot at political sway outside of a tiny minority of rednecks, based on their internet presence. <br /><br />DenMTDenMTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-19745997682497787272013-06-04T09:21:12.734+12:002013-06-04T09:21:12.734+12:00DenMT: Whois points to a Perry Spiller, who I'...DenMT: Whois points to a Perry Spiller, who I've never heard of. Searching and filtering out some UK DJ, seems to give a property investor who may or may not also have a passion for free range eggs. What did you find that was unsavoury?<br /><br />PM of NZ: I see your point, and indeed have had this debate endlessly with many friends. It seems to always boil down to agreeing to disagree. <br /><br />Fentex: An interesting point, and one many may not have considered. I don't think reneging on a deal is racist, but it IS a breach of contract. The question though is was this contract one that our government had any right to enter into on our behalf? That is, is it valid?Greig McGillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07177898101169161237noreply@blogger.com