|
Post by GO30 on Dec 11, 2023 17:06:11 GMT 12
So in your words as you are unable to understand others - What the question shouldn't be asked?
Either you know the question and offering an opinion or you don't know the question and you are just rabbiting the muppets. There is of course a 3rd option, you're a muppet as well but you do come across far more as one of the political drones send out to seed disinformation and untruths.
The referendum question would be something along the lines of should the proposed treaty principles bill become legislation. I can see your reluctance to answer the question, you have nothing sensible, rational or anything even slightly factual. Just like the other muppets who'd far rather shit stir and be racist fuckwits based on some shit they have assumed rather than have a conversation like adults to see what can be done to stop all this dumbarsery that helps exactly no one at all.
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 11, 2023 18:06:13 GMT 12
The referendum question would be something along the lines of should the proposed treaty principles bill become legislation. I can see your reluctance to answer the question, you have nothing sensible, rational or anything even slightly factual. Just like the other muppets who'd far rather shit stir and be racist fuckwits based on some shit they have assumed rather than have a conversation like adults to see what can be done to stop all this dumbarsery that helps exactly no one at all.
Your unbridled arrogance, boldly asserting that the New Zealand public possesses the acumen to decide on a constitutional law change, is nothing short of audacious and, frankly, offensive. The sheer audacity in presuming that even a minuscule fraction, such as 1 in 100,000, of the NZ populace has the depth of understanding required to grasp the intricate implications of discarding the meticulous work of the last 50 years in defining the Treaty goes beyond impracticality; it's a reckless disregard for the gravity of the situation. This stance not only displays a lack of respect for the complexities embedded in the historical and cultural context surrounding the Treaty but veers dangerously close to a racially insensitive dismissal of the profound implications at stake. The notion that such a monumental decision could be entrusted to a public inadequately versed in the nuances of this complex issue is, without mincing words, a blatant display of ignorance and a disservice to the integrity of the Treaty itself. Fortunately, we are led by individuals in government whose intelligence far surpasses the infinitesimally small capacity of your brain to comprehend the intricacies at play. These leaders not only grasp the depth of the issues surrounding the Treaty but have made it unequivocally clear that a referendum, entrusted to a populace insufficiently informed, will not be allowed to jeopardize the delicate balance of decades of work. It is a testament to their wisdom that they recognize the importance of preserving the integrity of the Treaty, steering us away from the reckless path your shortsighted perspective might advocate.
|
|
|
Post by eri on Dec 11, 2023 18:07:47 GMT 12
as we can't trust future woke gov. to guarantee equality i want this gov. to introduce a 'bill of rights' guaranteeing democracy and equality i didn't grow up as a 2nd class citizen in an ethno-state (A political unit that is populated by and run in the interest of an ethnic group.)and i will fight for my children to avoid the fate that the 30% woke-left have decided for themif equality was good enough for MLK it'd good enough for me "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP4iY1TtS3s&ab_channel=RAREFACTS
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ethnostate
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Dec 11, 2023 19:50:22 GMT 12
I can see your reluctance to answer the question, you have nothing sensible, rational or anything even slightly factual. Just like the other muppets who'd far rather shit stir and be racist fuckwits based on some shit they have assumed rather than have a conversation like adults to see what can be done to stop all this dumbarsery that helps exactly no one at all.
Your unbridled arrogance, boldly asserting that the New Zealand public possesses the acumen to decide on a constitutional law change, is nothing short of audacious and, frankly, offensive. Dear Mr Dude who goes off quite frequently about people not reading his post correctly.
Do those 2 things means the same thing or are they quite different?
I do find your assertion the NZ public is smart enough to vote in a bunch of randoms but are so fucking stupid they are incapable of listening and learning as a excellent example of the intentional shithouse and bullshit ridden quality of what is being thrown out in an effort to ensure a conversation is shut down before it can happen in a constructive manner.
That conversation is already happening but due to people exactly like you going hard out to try and stop it happening it still is but just in silos and we all know those only lead to bad places. What we, as a country, need to decide is do we pull that conversation out into the open, which will not be pleasant but has no need to be a punch in the face shit fight, or do we keep our head in the sand until the day NZ's Breton Tarrant is triggered throwing him off the deep end at the cost of lives? Make no mistake about it, if one redneck, no matter what colour the neck actually is, goes off in a real bad manner that will trigger others to follow.
BOOM!!! It's on and on for real. The only way to stop that will be by talking, having a conversation.
Why do people need to be harmed before the inevitable?
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 11, 2023 20:04:58 GMT 12
You asked me what the referendum question was and why it shouldn't be asked?
In what way do you envision a binding referendum, designed to enact an act of parliament, that would change the currently defined principles of the Treaty, as a genuine conversation?
We've been having conversations about the meaning of treaty for the past 50 years. I don't expect them to stop anytime soon.
We didn't need a referendum to reach the conclusion that abortion was OK. That conversation took 60 years - and it it was a shit load less complicated and charged than the treaty is.
We didn't need a referendum to decide to decriminalise homosexuality. Another multi-decade conversation that was actually pretty darn straight forward compared to the treaty.
And we sure as flying cat cows, don't need a referendum to continue to have conversations about the meaning of the treaty.
Please, continue the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 11, 2023 21:22:00 GMT 12
No, it wont. (That is me agreeing with you btw) But the process preceding a referendum might. The adult discussion around it. That is what is needed. You will note that this move to have a referendum is a direct result of Labour ambushing the country with co-governance in everything. There was no discussion about that. Labour did not campaign on it. The truth is Labour went to great length to hide the co-governance provisions from the public. That is what has caused the division. Having constitutional change foisted on us in a 'bait and switch'. Labour were sneaking through massive constitutional change. But following that, you think we shouldn't have a public debate on it? At least ACT have had the common decency to state this as a policy and campaign on it. And while a referendum itself may not be the ideal mechanism, the overall guts of it is that we need to have a discussion about it. Bit hard to campaign saying "we're going to have a discussion", sounds like a cup of tea and talk of the weather. The current treaty principals have been being worked on by experts since the 70s. They come from judgements, laws, the Waitangi tribunal and the crown. I am not convinced that the general public is in a position of expertise to debate the changing of treaty principles. I guess that the quality of the public responses that the select committee receive on the new bill during consultation will prove that one way or another... What a complete load of twaddlebollocks. Labour, last term, as in the last 3 years, went and turned the treaty principles on its head. By them selves. No research, no Waitangi Tirbunal, no consultation, no nothing. To say that the general public are too thick to know when they are getting rogered up the date-hole is beyond arrogant.
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 11, 2023 22:15:12 GMT 12
Here is a question for you Duckmaster It's a yes or no type of question, so no weasel words. 'Do you agree that the democratically elected government has the right to govern New Zealand?'
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 11, 2023 22:23:44 GMT 12
The current treaty principals have been being worked on by experts since the 70s. They come from judgements, laws, the Waitangi tribunal and the crown. I am not convinced that the general public is in a position of expertise to debate the changing of treaty principles. I guess that the quality of the public responses that the select committee receive on the new bill during consultation will prove that one way or another... What a complete load of twaddlebollocks. Labour, last term, as in the last 3 years, went and turned the treaty principles on its head. By them selves. No research, no Waitangi Tirbunal, no consultation, no nothing. To say that the general public are too thick to know when they are getting rogered up the date-hole is beyond arrogant. Ummm... Actually no. And thanks again for proving my point that the general NZ public knows very little about the treaty and the constitutional law that surrounds it. The treaty principles originated in 1986 off the back of an high court judgement. The high court came up with a set of principles. One of those principles was that government and Maori are in a partnership. And this is the root of all co-governance. Later laws, defined in the late 80's and early 90's entrenched these principles and expanded on them further. The most recent legislation to reference and give authority to the principles was made in 2011 - was that even a Labour govt then? In 2006, NZ First tried to get the principles thrown out, they bought the "Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill" to parliament - Winston Peters was there then too. Of course they failed and parliament did not delete the principles It is interesting that nearly 20yrs later Winston Peters is whistling a different tune.... Or maybe he letting Act whistle for him? Who knows with that guy... So "yeah, nuh..." Not a last labour government thing at all.
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 11, 2023 22:42:51 GMT 12
Here is a question for you Duckmaster It's a yes or no type of question, so no weasel words. 'Do you agree that the democratically elected government has the right to govern New Zealand?' Yes, the democratically elected government has the rightful authority to govern New Zealand. But the authority to govern doesn't imply the ability to arbitrarily discard or disregard the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty remains a foundational document, and while the government governs, it must do so in a manner that upholds the principles of the Treaty and respects the rights and interests of Maori. And for the record, while the government governs, it must do so in a manner that upholds all of New Zealands foundational documents. The government must govern within our legal framework. The King on the other hand can change anything he wants whenever he wants. Of course no one would listen to him. Imagine having on paper all the power in the commonwealth to do whatever you want, but in reality having no power at all. Sounds very similar to our treaty...
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Dec 12, 2023 6:20:47 GMT 12
Here is a question for you Duckmaster It's a yes or no type of question, so no weasel words. 'Do you agree that the democratically elected government has the right to govern New Zealand?' Yes, the democratically elected government has the rightful authority to govern New Zealand. But the authority to govern doesn't imply the ability to arbitrarily discard or disregard the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty remains a foundational document, and while the government governs, it must do so in a manner that upholds the principles of the Treaty and respects the rights and interests of Maori. And for the record, while the government governs, it must do so in a manner that upholds all of New Zealands foundational documents. The government must govern within our legal framework. The King on the other hand can change anything he wants whenever he wants. Of course no one would listen to him. Imagine having on paper all the power in the commonwealth to do whatever you want, but in reality having no power at all. Sounds very similar to our treaty... Who is proposing to discard the treaty?
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Dec 12, 2023 7:18:16 GMT 12
Trotters take. democracyproject.nz/2023/12/11/chris-trotter-contested-ground/Chris Trotter: Contested ground December 11, 2023 LAST WEEK The Waitangi Tribunal released Tino Rangatiratanga me te Kāwanatanga: The Report on Stage 2 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry(Wai 1040). For the sake of brevity, I shall refer to this spawling document as the Northland Report. Sadly, the Report seems destined to make the already fraught relationship between Māori and the Crown even worse. Questions relating to who wields sovereignty in New Zealand – including Northland – are fast acquiring the sort of weight and momentum that drives people irresistibly towards the conclusion that push is coming to shove. There was a time when those with an interest in history would have embraced the Northland Report with relish. Unfortunately, this is no longer possible in New Zealand. History, like so many other subjects, has become a bitterly contested ideological ground. A discipline where angry partisans struggle for supremacy. For the moment, at least, the upper hand lies where it has lain for the past 50 years – with the Tribunal. For most of that time New Zealanders assumed that those weighing the evidence which claimants brought before the Tribunal were dispassionate professionals. Only relatively recently has it become clear that the Tribunal’s “history” is little more than compensatory fiction, composed by Māori and/or Māori-identifying “historians” to clear the way for the Crown’s acknowledgement of wrong-doing and, ultimately, to secure compensation for the manifold sins of our colonial fathers. In short, the Waitangi Tribunal has taken upon itself the risky business of inserting indigenous moral judgements into the amoral narrative of New Zealand’s past. I say “amoral” for the very simple reason that the events of the past, like those of the present, are driven by such a multiplicity of factors that expecting them to elicit universal approval, or condemnation (like the Holocaust) is nonsensical. The current Minister for Treaty Settlements, for example, Paul Goldsmith, sees as much virtue as vice in the colonisation of New Zealand – an historical perspective that would find few supporters among Māori Treaty historians. Māori scholars, and their allies, present colonisation as an unmitigated disaster: an historical catastrophe from which the indigenous people of New Zealand are only now beginning to recover. With this view of New Zealand history, the Tribunal is clearly in steadfast agreement. Its reports are based on the testimony of the aggrieved, and upon their carefully curated historical grievances. Only to this “evidence” does the Tribunal accord the status of unchallengeable truth. And only these, the Tribunal’s truths, are allowed to prevail over what is invariably characterised as the evil historical choices of the Crown. That this Manichean historiography cannot help but infantilise Māori, turning them into trusting dupes of the wicked Pakeha, and denying them the dignity of effective historical agency, is deemed an acceptable price to pay by a Waitangi Tribunal determined to deliver to Māori claimants a browbeaten and guilt-ridden Crown. A stricken Crown cannot be secured, however, unless the Treaty of Waitangi is itself reconceived as something other than what it so clearly was: an agreement securing the voluntary cession of Māori sovereignty to the British Crown. A Crown committed to protecting the native people’s “lands, forests and fisheries” from rapacious chancers like the New Zealand Company; and to safeguarding their persons from allcomers by granting them the full rights and privileges of British subjects. But, such a Treaty would require the Māori chiefs and their people to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Victoria. Any concerted failure to do so would oblige the colonial authorities to enforce the Crown’s supremacy.
Obviously, that Treaty of Waitangi was no good. What the Tribunal needed was a Treaty that left the sovereignty of the chiefs intact and unhindered by the decisions of a government in faraway London.
But, once again, this could only be achieved by asserting that the chieftains gathered at Waitangi were too dim-witted to understand the proposition that was being put to them. That, in all their debates over whether or not Captain Hobson’s proposed agreement was worth signing, there was not one Māori leader with even the slightest understanding that they were dealing with the wealthiest and most powerful entity on the planet. Not one who grasped that if they failed to secure the “protection” of Great Britain, then they would soon be receiving the “attentions” of her rivals.
In reality, there were many Māori present who understood exactly what Hobson was offering, and explained it clearly to those who demonstrated confusion. We know this because the impassioned refusals by a number of chiefs to surrender their freedom of action to the British was recorded by those present at Waitangi on 6 February 1840. Those who did sign knew what they were getting – and what they were giving away.
Reputable historians do not present grown human beings as innocent children, or confused savages, incapable of understanding the political, economic and military realities of their time. Nor do they construct frankly ridiculous constitutional scenarios in which the British Government of 1840 was happy to share power with “natives” whom the science of the day proclaimed their inferiors. Since 2014, the Waitangi Tribunal has been indulging in what might best be called “Bridgerton History” – i.e. refashioning the realities of the past to meet the ideological specifications of the present.
Among those ideological specifications, at least in New Zealand, is that the nation state which grew out of the Treaty of Waitangi (as understood prior to the 1980s) must be “decolonised”. Part and parcel of that decolonisation process, from the perspective of the Māori people of the North, will be the creation of a territorial entity in which the writ of the New Zealand state no longer runs. What Hōne Heke Pōkai could not hold, Christopher Luxon is expected to hand back. But Luxon (or any other prime minister of New Zealand for that matter) cannot do that without sanctioning the state’s disintegration – something which Pakeha (and not a few Māori) simply will not permit. The nation which the 1840 Treaty enabled has come too far to surrender itself to a political project dedicated to the proposition that it should never have been permitted to exist in the first place. Christopher Luxon may soon find himself playing the role of Abraham Lincoln, fighting to preserve the unity of his country against those who would refashion it according to the ugly and divisive considerations of race.
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 12, 2023 9:00:24 GMT 12
But the authority to govern doesn't imply the ability to arbitrarily discard or disregard the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty remains a foundational document, and while the government governs, it must do so in a manner that upholds the principles of the Treaty and respects the rights and interests of Maori. Who is proposing to discard the treaty? My point is that the authority to govern doesn't give the government the right to do whatever it wants. Eg, discarding the principals, (without a referendum), would be a breach of the bill of rights of 1688. Yes, 1688.
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Dec 12, 2023 9:20:26 GMT 12
But they're not discarding the treaty, which makes a rule from 1688 or any other year between now and then completely irrelevant.
My point is that the authority to govern doesn't give the government the right to do whatever it wants. It's a pity no one told that to Dame Jacinda and co isn't it...
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 12, 2023 9:44:08 GMT 12
But they're not discarding the treaty, which makes a rule from 1688 or any other year between now and then completely irrelevant. Nope. Our legal system doesn't work like that.
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Dec 12, 2023 10:08:14 GMT 12
But they're not discarding the treaty, which makes a rule from 1688 or any other year between now and then completely irrelevant. Nope. Our legal system doesn't work like that. So they are disgarding the treaty?
|
|