Posts by Mikaere Curtis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'd like like you to think through the idea that the Maori seats can't be changed or abolished without "Maori assent" (whatever that means - and I'd seriously like to know). if you want to take that to the reductio ad aburdum (and a deliberately repulsive one) Helen Clark should STFU on any legislation regarding child health, welfare or education because she doesn't have any.
There is a difference between the right to express an opinion and passing authoritarian legislation that ignores the overwhelming wishes of those that are directly targeted by the laws. To provide you with an equally repulsive logical conclusion to what you are presenting, would you be OK with government that passed a law re-criminalising gay sex, or should they, y'know, see if it's cool with the gay community first ?
"Maori assent" (whatever that means - and I'd seriously like to know)
The only model we have at the moment is iwi by iwi, and/or hapu by hapu, such as recently was the case for those involved in the Treelord settlement. A lot more time-consuming that ramming a bill through parliament, and only of use if you are interested in buy-in rather than imposition.
-
In my opinion fairly and reasonably settling grievances, albeit for a fraction of their real worth, and promoting/supporting the development of commerically-viable Maori owned and led-business is heading in the right direction.
I agree. My comment about Tino Rangatiratanga stems from the fact that about 93% of the signatories to Te Tiriti signed the Maori version, which does not cede sovereignty, and that hapu and iwi retained it. It's effectively a concept that involves community responsibility and authority.
I said "workable" because if we were to implement something like this we absolutely have to recognise the Pakeha side of our population and find a way to equitably include all ethnicities in participating in the devolved authority that underpins Tino Rangatiratanga.
For example, under a Tino Rangatiratanga-based system, we would not be facing the extinction of tuna (native eels). It be a clear case where the local community would be able to prevent (or allow) commercial eel fishing. Instead, under the centralised Quota Management System, they are heading for extincting in exchange for "fewer than 100 jobs" in the industry. It's simply depressing and completely avoidable.
-
Not at all, Mikaere. "disenfranchised" has a rather specific meaning
Actually, it has two meanings, according to the Compact Oxford:
1 deprive of the right to vote.
2 deprive of a right or privilege.Clearly, revoking the Maori seats falls into the second definition. I fail to see how you could conclude that I meant the to use the first definition.
I just believe the Maori seats are well past their use-by date, and deserve to be thrown in the same historical dustbin as the property qualification, male-only suffrage and the idea that (in England) Jews, Catholics, Muslims and non-conformist Protestants were unfit to sit in Parliament.
And when the rest of Maoridom agree with your fatuous argument (that Maori seats are consonant with historical policies that actively denied political participation), then we'll all migrate to the general seats and the matter will be resolved, won't it.
Then again, I'd be happy to swap the Maori seats for a workable political model the encompasses Tino Rangatiratanga.
-
Thanks Caleb for pointing out that the demise of the Maori seats is linked to National's heroically ambitious timetable for final settlement of historic Treaty claims.
While this might be long enough for National to have a change of heart, I'm minded to conclude that since they have effectively ditched any hope of winning a Maori seat (through ill-conceived attacks on Maori), that they would see that abolishing the seats would render them contestable again.
OTOH, they could simply get some decent policies in place and campaign in the Maori seats once more. If NZ First could win Maori seats, there's no reason why National can't.
-
It might not be a principle you agree with, but to cry disefranchisement seems foolhardy.
Well, rather dishonest anyway.
What's this Craig, are you calling me dishonest ? Unless you subscribe to the principle that criticising National's policies is thoughtcrime and therefore inherently dishonest, I suggest you visit a dictionary and look up the meaning of disefranchisement.
Oh, and I'd welcome an apology while you are about it.
-
As I've said before, I expect a National-led government would be less to my taste, but not really that different. There's a fairly high degree of political consensus in this country -- although I think I was correct in feeling that was under threat from the people who clustered around Brash.
Does that included their non-negotiable declaration that they will unilaterally remove the Maori electorates ? It's one of the few things that National are clear that they will do.
Seriously, the fallout from this kind of cavalier, arrogant, disenfranchisement will be massive. And the "high degree of political consensus" will be the first casualty.
At least with the FS&SB debacle, Maori still had a voice, and we used it to ensure we had representative MPs who did more than toe the Labour party line. Deleting this representation, and the Maori Party to boot, is a key risk inherent in the coming election.
-
I think you'll find that Aro Valley in Wellington is home to both the Hippys (ies?) AND the socialists.
Both of whom vote Green.
IMO, socialists voting Green do so because of social justice issues rather than any quantity of socialism in the Green party. Our policies just do not reflect it. Social justice ? Yes. Socialism ? No.
One facet of socialism is a tendency toward centralised decision-making, and this clearly goes against the Appropriate Decision-making Green Party charter principle, where those that are most affected by a decision should have the most involvement in the decision-making process. Which means that, fundamentally, socialism is not a good fit.
-
OTOH, Russell, it's not hard to feel that folks are getting pretty damn sick of the slick, punchy and totally content free soundbite that Clark is very, very good at as well.
I agree, Clark is very adroit at soundbites, especially when that's the timeslice through which she must expound her position. But if you compare her interviews on Bfm with those of Key on the same station, you get a picture of a PM who has a solid grip on the detail,versus an MP who grip on details is remarkably slender.
IIRC, on a recent interview with Mikie Havoc, Key promised a $45-$50 per week tax cut to the average earner (based on pre-budget rates). Craig, have you got any idea how he can possibly do this ? Or is this yet another example of Key making promises that he knows people want to hear, without any indication how/if he can deliver. It is difficult to conclude anything other than that he is being disingenuous.
-
If that isn't politically driven socialist crap nothing is.
I don't think socialists have a monopoly on this kind of authoritarianism, just look at the US War on Drugs.
I am really disappointed with the police. Given the stats that they themselves declare - circa 80% of violent crime is related to alcohol - I can only conclude that the knowingly set the brief for this report clearly with PR in mind.
-
Whoops !
Here's a better link