Apartheid alive & well. In NZ.

[The Atheist]

It could also be described as reverse apartheid, since, in an unusual twist, the minority racial group - Maori - are the ones gaining the benefits of the policy.

Maori are the only group with a guaranteed representation in Parliament. 7 of the 120 seats in parliament are designated Maori seats which are voted for geographically by Maori who prefer to vote on the Maori electoral roll instead of the general one.

Maori have rights to fishing which cannot be bought or obtained by people of other races.

Maori have rights to land, seashore access and greenstone [nephrite jade] mining which cannot be obtained by other people.

The latest proposal is that separate prison units be set up for Maori use solely. This proposal has had a warm reception from the current government, which is in coalition with the Maori Party. (The Maori Party holds 5/7 of the Maori seats.)

New Zealand has been kept afloat by a sea of migrants over the past 25 years, but the fact that they will arrive here and never be able to obtain second-class citizen status isn't usually advised to them.

Even the amagamation of Auckland's four cities into one has drawn the attention of Maori and they are now demanding representation on the new council - again, such representation not to be electoral, but race-based.

Next time someone decides that race is a concept which does not exist, could they please come and explain that to NZ's simple politicians?

 

[WildCat]

Man, you guys are feeling guilty!

 

[The Atheist]

Man, you guys are feeling guilty!

Yep. There has been a public apology and payment of several billion in guilt money already. If only I could figure what we're guilty about.

 

[six7s]

It could also be described as reverse apartheid

If you're a liar and or a fool, yeah...

Have you actually taken the time to read the founding document of this country, TA?

Note:

• it is legally binding
• one party (the Crown) is guilty of breaking it, to the detriment of the other party and, consequently, the whole nation...
  
  Surely you know this TA? Why pretend otherwise?

New Zealand has been kept afloat by a sea of migrants over the past 25 years, but the fact that they will arrive here and never be able to obtain second-class citizen status isn't usually advised to them.

Bollocks

www.hrc.co.nz Human rights and the Treaty of Waitangi

• Article 1, which provides for the Crown’s right to govern in New Zealand and, when taken together with the Preamble, provides a basis for settlement
• Article 2, which guarantees to Maori ‘full, exclusive and undisturbed possession’ (English version) or ‘te tino rangatiratanga’ (Maori version) of their lands, estates, forests, fisheries, and ‘taonga’ (treasured possessions). In addition to the property rights clearly protected, this article provides for Maori the right to live as Maori and to govern relevant aspects of Maori life
• Article 3, which affirms the equal citizenship rights of Maori, Pakeha[2] and all New Zealanders (at that time, British subjects).

www.dia.govt.nz General Requirements for a Grant of New Zealand Citizenship

Responsibilities and Privileges

Becoming a New Zealand citizen means you will undertake responsibilities and you will enjoy the same privileges of a person born in New Zealand. You must be aware of these responsibilities and privileges.

Responsibilities

• To obey and promote the laws of New Zealand (this includes registration as a voter and fulfilment of tax obligations).
  <snip/>

 

[The Atheist]

If you're a liar and or a fool, yeah...

Thanks. Being neither, I'm quite capable of making a case without being abusive, but since you're not, I'll leave you to it.

Have you actually taken the time to read the founding document of this country, TA?

Yep - I even have two copies, one in English, the other a translation of the Maori.

Nowhere in it do I find anything about undemocratic representation in Parliament, nor do I see anything about sole ownership of fisheries. Prison rights don't feature in it either.

Note:

• it is legally binding
• one party (the Crown) is guilty of breaking it, to the detriment of the other party and, consequently, the whole nation...
  
  Surely you know this TA? Why pretend otherwise?

Yes, I do know about breaches of the treaty, but they aren't relevant to my comments. The Waitangi Tribunal is making those settlements for past wrongs, but again, no mention of prisons or representation on councils and in parliament.

Bollocks

Again, much easier to write that than look at the facts. What percentage of doctors in NZ were trained here? Engineers? Teachers?

Without an influx of educated migrants, there would be no infrastructure in the country. Open your eyes, man. You seem to have missed an antire generation of change in this country if you think for a second that NZ would be anything but a third world basket case without migrants.

www.hrc.co.nz Human rights and the Treaty of Waitangi[/QUOTE]

How quaint - you can copy & paste.

I have this niggly suspicion that excluding other Kiwis from Maori fishing zones, enabling Maori-only seats in parliament and creating Maori-only jails was ever the intent of the treaty, but the updates only work one way - there were no dogs or airwaves available when Europens arrived here, yet those things are now "taonga.

Not to mention that argument of Maori sovereignty is a stupid cop-out. You want full and total sovereignty? Ok, here you go! Whoosh - give it all to them.

No doctors, no hospitals, no law, no technology, no farms.

Good luck!

General Requirements for a Grant of New Zealand Citizenship

That is proven to be completely wrong by the fact that while one can become a NZ citizen, one cannot become a Maori and obtain the additional benefits being a member of the Maori race.

 

[six7s]

Nowhere in it do I find anything about undemocratic representation in Parliament,

Foundation document...

Not all-in-one, for-ever-and-ever document

You do know why and when the Maori seats were established, right?

Yes, I do know about breaches of the treaty, but they aren't relevant to my comments.

Similarly, nor is your use of the term abusive

You seem to have missed an antire generation of change in this country if you think for a second that NZ would be anything but a third world basket case without migrants.

You seem to have hop, skipped and jumped to a conclusion

 

[The Atheist]

Foundation document...

Not all-in-one, for-ever-and-ever document

But you brought it up as a reason for why things are as they are. Now, it's fine to be changed. Which way do you want it? Are you a member of the Tangatua Whenua seeking to have it both ways - like all Treaty setllements to date?

You do know why and when the Maori seats were established, right?

Sure do. Standard Four, I think it was.

Similarly, nor is your use of the term abusive

Goodo, let's leave it all out from here on.

You seem to have hop, skipped and jumped to a conclusion

Nah. It's grown over several decades and being confirmed more every day. As I said, take a look around you and tell me who would be staffing our hospitals and doctors' surgeries, engineering jobs and other crucial positions if it not the migrants who are currently in those jobs.

Yet not one of those migrants will ever be able to claim any benefit under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

 

[dudalb]

And I thought we Yanks had a headache with our Native American problems....

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Aboriginal issues are very complex here too...

 

[six7s]

Yet not one of those migrants will ever be able to claim any benefit under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

OK...

So... ermmm... huh?

Please explain:

From your (decades-old) perspective, what is(are) the fundamental problem(s)?
​

TYIA

 

[MG1962]

The Athiest, you seem to have forgotten a few important facts

Who was there first?

Why the Treaty was signed?

What the Maori did, that no other native group did in their dealings with British Colonial expansion?

 

[The Atheist]

Please explain:

From your (decades-old) perspective, what is(are) the fundamental problem(s)?
​

TYIA

No, you seem to have things back to front. You were demanding that the 169-year old terms be adhered to.

I've shown you what I think some of the problems are - rights available to Maori only.

The Athiest, you seem to have forgotten a few important facts

Pretty sure I haven't, but go ahead:

Who was there first?

In NZ?

Probably Maori.

What relevance does that have? Should we have degrees of citizens' rights which improve the longer your race has been here? Those Sasas, Philipinos and South Africans are in trouble, if so.

Why the Treaty was signed?

Because the Poms had been fought to a standstill and the cost of mounting a campaign to "win" the country was a bit excessive for a place 12,000 miles and about four months' travel from jolly England.

Now, if they'd just tried to emigrate the locals to death, that probably would have worked and we'd be Australia!

This goes to the nub of the argument - the Treaty was written 169 years ago, and even 6*7 has acknowledged that it wasn't meant to be an ever-after document. What happened before and during the signing of the Treay is largely irrelvant given that all of the participants have been dead for a century.

This is just more of the having and eating the same cake that Maori have achieved - all the benefits, none of the costs.

What the Maori did, that no other native group did in their dealings with British Colonial expansion?

Lots of things - which particular one do you want to cover?

 

[six7s]

No, you seem to have things back to front. You were demanding that the 169-year old terms be adhered to.

I've shown you what I think some of the problems are - rights available to Maori only.

It doesn't matter if I've got it upside down and inside out... stop dodging and tell me what - from the perspective of your decades-in-the-making conclusion - is (or are) the fundamental problem(s)

 

[MG1962]

No, you seem to have things back to front. You were demanding that the 169-year old terms be adhered to.

I've shown you what I think some of the problems are - rights available to Maori only.

Pretty sure I haven't, but go ahead:

In NZ?

Probably Maori.

What relevance does that have? Should we have degrees of citizens' rights which improve the longer your race has been here? Those Sasas, Philipinos and South Africans are in trouble, if so.


Because the Poms had been fought to a standstill and the cost of mounting a campaign to "win" the country was a bit excessive for a place 12,000 miles and about four months' travel from jolly England.

Now, if they'd just tried to emigrate the locals to death, that probably would have worked and we'd be Australia!

This goes to the nub of the argument - the Treaty was written 169 years ago, and even 6*7 has acknowledged that it wasn't meant to be an ever-after document. What happened before and during the signing of the Treay is largely irrelvant given that all of the participants have been dead for a century.

This is just more of the having and eating the same cake that Maori have achieved - all the benefits, none of the costs.



Lots of things - which particular one do you want to cover?

Well lets see. The Maoris are there hanging out doing stuff they always did until someone invented Rugby

Settlers arrive, the Maoris notice all this commerce going rather than resist it they play the game, and make some pretty shrewd choices.

The British ultimately get tired of this game, and proceed to attempt to spank the naughty Maoris. The Maoris also like this game, and find (like Rugby) they are pretty good at it as well, and spank back

The British get tired of this and decide to make a deal with the Maoris. You give us New Zealand, and we will pomise you can be represented in the government of the land, and catch fish.

Have I missed anything?

Oh yes.

Part of immigrating to a new country is to respect the existing laws of that land. As an immigrant to another country myself I understand the need for this. There are laws I think a plain stupid in the country I now live in. I have no right to try and make 200 years of society irrelivant because I dont agree with these laws.

 

[arthwollipot]

What the Maori did, that no other native group did in their dealings with British Colonial expansion?

What - you mean kick the invaders' pasty white butts?

 

[quixotecoyote]

What - you mean kick the invaders' pasty white butts?

I wouldn't say a series of draws is butt kicking. Impressive, though.

 

[Roboramma]

TA, I don't really see the problem with that. The fact that democracies have to do something to protect the interests minority groups is pretty obvious. That this is the way that NZ is going about doing that doesn't seem like a problem to me.

Is it racist? I don't know. There is a distinct culture that has distinct issues and interests that need to be recognised. If this is the best way that we know of to recognise them, great.

Regarding other issues, such as those raised by six7s, I am ignorant too ignorant of NZ's history and law to comment. But I don't think the idea of special representation is necessarily a bad one, in particular when the majority (who you feel are the ones being oppressed by it) are the ones who seem to be implementing it in the first place.

 

[dudalb]

Will Peter Jackson make a movie about this issue?

 

[The Atheist]

It doesn't matter if I've got it upside down and inside out... stop dodging and tell me what - from the perspective of your decades-in-the-making conclusion - is (or are) the fundamental problem(s)

Uh, I haven't dodged anything, but since I'd mentioned in the OP, I didn't think they were worth repeating, but here you go:

Maori are the only group with a guaranteed representation in Parliament.

Maori have rights to fishing which cannot be bought or obtained by people of other races.

Maori have rights to land, seashore access and greenstone [nephrite jade] mining which cannot be obtained by other people.

... separate prison units be set up for Maori use solely.

Even the amagamation of Auckland's four cities into one has drawn the attention of Maori and they are now demanding representation on the new council - again, such representation not to be electoral, but race-based.

Clear now?

Well lets see. The Maoris are there hanging out doing stuff they always did until someone invented Rugby

Settlers arrive, the Maoris notice all this commerce going rather than resist it they play the game, and make some pretty shrewd choices.

The British ultimately get tired of this game, and proceed to attempt to spank the naughty Maoris. The Maoris also like this game, and find (like Rugby) they are pretty good at it as well, and spank back

The British get tired of this and decide to make a deal with the Maoris. You give us New Zealand, and we will pomise you can be represented in the government of the land, and catch fish.

Have I missed anything?

Oh yes.

Yes, you missed the part that nowhere is excusivity mentioned. They have rights to catch fish, there is no mention of suppressing others' rights concurrently.

Part of immigrating to a new country is to respect the existing laws of that land. As an immigrant to another country myself I understand the need for this. There are laws I think a plain stupid in the country I now live in. I have no right to try and make 200 years of society irrelivant because I dont agree with these laws.

What on earth is this apologetic nonsense?

Laws change because people create pressure to change them, not because people roll over and let it be.

TA, I don't really see the problem with that. The fact that democracies have to do something to protect the interests minority groups is pretty obvious. That this is the way that NZ is going about doing that doesn't seem like a problem to me.

That would work if other minority groups were accorded similar privileges.

They are not.

Is it racist? I don't know. There is a distinct culture that has distinct issues and interests that need to be recognised. If this is the best way that we know of to recognise them, great.

Well, since it's resulted in a people comprising 14% of the population to occupy 51% of the prison cells, it is probably broken enough to fix it.

(That's one of a large number of negative statistics which Maori are way over-represented in.)

Regarding other issues, such as those raised by six7s, I am ignorant too ignorant of NZ's history and law to comment. But I don't think the idea of special representation is necessarily a bad one, in particular when the majority (who you feel are the ones being oppressed by it) are the ones who seem to be implementing it in the first place.

What majority is this?

The government is a minority government which has managed to form a majority coalition representing a majority of voters, but if they want to claim they are representing the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders, I'd love to see the proof.

 

[plumjam]

I don't think the Maoris do too badly. I can't remember ever seeing one that wasn't fat and happy.