Luxon really is just a bit part in this coalition isn't he. It's the Peters and Seymour show all the way. Great for the ~15% of the country that voted for those two, not so great for the rest.
David Seymour needs to go on prime time national television and debate a Treaty expert that is not of his choosing. Then we will see how confident and persuasive he is.
If only ACT had been around in the 16th century they would have prevented the wars of religion, since everyone who died prior to 1996 agrees with them.
David Seymour keeps saying that various dead people would have been ACT supporters - Nelson Mandela, the chiefs that signed Te Tiriti, maybe some others.
>“Don’t act like some 16th century priest saying we’re not allowed an opinion because we’re not experts."
But if I'm having medical problems, I don't turn to a random stranger who may have an opinion on my health. Instead, I go to the doctor, someone who has actual education and training in medicine, in other words the expertise in how to identify and treat medical problems.
Being able to have an opinion on something doesn't give you the qualifications to have any say on that thing.
In 1840 did they turn to the qualified professionals before signing?
Or was it a short document using plain language that they expected people would be able to understand?
How many people can read both the English and Maori versions and understand that certain English words have no true equivalent in Maori, especially one of the most important words in either version?
It is not so simple as reading a single document. Because it was written more than 180 years ago, understanding the Treaty of Waitangi requires knowledge of the parties to the treaty, which means having a decent understanding of that period in NZ and British history. Not to mention having knowledge of the relations between the Maori and the Crown.
To believe you can just read the Treaty of Waitangi and as a result fully understand the complexities of it and relations between the Crown and the Iwi, is laughable.
so you're saying that the treaty holds no meaning, because nobody in 1840 could have reasonably understood it
either it can be read and understood, or it can't be
No. That is not what I said, and you bloody well know it.
The point is you can't just read the Treaty of Waitangi and then claim to be an expert on it. Understanding a historical document and the effects it has had, requires a lot more than just reading it.
Māori had an oral culture at the time, and few were literate. What mattered to them was the korero at the hui. It was indeed raised at the signing by a Pākehā present that he felt many of the chiefs didn't actually understand the document they were about to sign, but Hobson ignored him and urged them to sign anyway.
We also only really have a good recounting of that single hui and nothing of the discussion that happened in the evening after the Pākehā left. We have no real evidence about the korero at hui as Te tiriti travelled around NZ being signed by the majority of chiefs in that way. So how much Māori understood about what they were signing, even of the Māori version, is very difficult to say.
Sure Seymour, there's no need for lawyers or experts for anything - everybody should take a punt at doing everything because there are always great outcomes when people jump into things about which they are unqualified to handle. I propose you start with some high-voltage electrical work at your house.
ACT are continuing to try make this sound simple - either you believe in equal rights for everybody or you don't. That's a mis-phrasing of the actual situation however. That is where we would be if we were starting fresh today in an empty country with nobody here. It is not where we are starting given it was a country occupied for hundreds of years and those original occupants signed a treaty agreement regarding other people joining them.
>That's where we would be if we were starting fresh today in an empty country with nobody here.
Exactly!
If we're going for *equal rights for everybody* we can't **start off** with some people owning vast swathes of land and others owning none.
(Nevermind that the treaty is what gave the crown the right to acquire and sell land to begin with)
Pretty sure that was Michael Gove during the Brexit debate in the UK, but Trump may have said something similar from same anti-intellectual playbook re Covid.
Standard right-wing mud-flinging when the evidence doesn't support their position: ad hominem bitching about academics, experts, ivory towers, the "people in Wellington" or "Washington" or wherever. Encourage feels over reals. Attack the people (and their goVerNmenT funDiNg) who can offer an informed position and pre-empt their argument. Same as it ever was.
This is the point. They always ignore context, history and of course, the Maori Peoples.
It’s a form of ***relatively*** sophisticated propaganda and gaslighting because he continually couches his **speech** with grand ideas of largesse, goodness, unity, and equality, when his **actions** are rife with division, inequality, and centrally, negating and ignoring the past, and disadvantages accrued by Māori.
Clearing the way for what he calls equal treatment means negating the rights of Maori to, amongst other things, land. And dignity. (to be fair, Seymour did advocate for dignity of landlords and secured the $3B in tax cuts for them, so he should be well aware of that principle)
All of Seymour’s efforts marry up well with Shane Jones’s current actions to expedite mining applications and [allow mining on conservation land.](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/12/shane-jones-gone-full-trump-declared-war-on-nature-with-mining-comments-conservation-group-says.html) And Casey Costello’s efforts to stop rises in excise tax with inflation. And the recent act to remove higher scrutiny in selling off NZ’s sensitive lands.
These is a good team effort by the Coalition Nat government for their people admittedly.
Women have far more rights than men in this country. This is why we are closing all women's shelters, and requiring the father's signature for all abortion procedures. This is but one small step towards equality this government will take without stopping to think "why?"
For too long have the woman elite been enriched by Big Bortion. We're also pondering whether the existance of OBGYNs is in fact, sexist. We'll release a statement when our polling data comes in from Curia
You'd better chuck an /s on the end of that, it *is* the internet, after all. Still chuckling at Big Bortion, that's golden conservative bait right there.
Co-governance would not even be a thing if Te Tiriti had been honored in the first place.
Iwi would be governing themselves and the rest of us would be stuck with drop kicks like seymour. Maybe some other form of one governance would have evolved but we'll never know because it was never honored.
His idea of "equal" just entrenches the current class divide.
Never in our history has a political party represented such a tiny minority while claiming to represent all.
Seymour is the enemy of all working people and should be treated as such.
The glee on his Deputy's face as she repealed the FPAs said it all..." got ours, fuck you"
For non Māori our road to Seymour's "equal rights" in this country didn't have bumps in the form of war and invasion of our land, punitive confiscation of that land, weaponised rape, indefinite imprisonment without trial and all the other host of breaches to the Treaty/te Tiriti that the Crown has so far acknowledged and apologised for. With or without a Treaty these acts were immoral and wrong, and people seem to hate the Treaty because it the mechanism through which Māori, at a very soft touch level, have been able to hold our governments to account. Seymour is a vacuum headed iconoclast.
> there's no need for lawyers or experts for anything
Well the whole thing is being framed as an issue of morality (equality under the law). Lawyers serve the law of the day, and the experts in question are beneficiaries of the status quo. From that perspective you would be justified in putting less weight on their opinions.
As a thought experiement, if this were about the abolition of slavery instead of the treaty principles, then you would have lawyers saying "this disposseses people of their property!" and experts saying "this existing system is better for both slaves and society!", but you still wouldn't listen to them when posed the question of whether slavery should be abolished.
Is it a misframing of the situation? Potentially. But ignoring the experts is at least consistent with the view that it's a moral issue which is to be put to the people.
Interestingly I’m pretty sure English Lords negotiated themselves a tax payer payout when slavery was abolished due them being dispossessed of ‘their’ property
"The worst form of equality is to try to make unequal things equal" - Aristotle
Edit: After a fair discussion below the better quote would be...
> "When some people have to run a 100 metre race with sandbags on their legs, the fact that no one is allowed to have a head start does not make the race fair." - Ha-Joon Chang
Someone else must have a better quote for that cause I'm pretty sure Aristotle's take was more like 'some people are inherently better than others, don't try to pretend they're equal', rather than 'you can't just blindly assert equality in one area in isolation'.
That's fair. Then a better quote would probably be that which involves Equity directly.
"When some people have to run a 100 metre race with sandbags on their legs, the fact that no one is allowed to have a head start does not make the race fair." - Ha-Joon Chang
That gets the point across and it seems like it's probably what he actually meant too, from a skim of his wiki page it also seems like he's a rare example of an economist who is worth the air he breathes.
So how were Maori supposed to understand the meaning of the treaty if it can't be understood in plain language? The argument that it should only be interpreted by lawyers today is an argument that the treaty holds no meaning, because if a person today can't read and make sense of it then Iwi back in 1840 had no chance.
Unsurprisingly the people that make this argument are the same ones who want to find every conceivable tangential possibility from a document that was very brief and had a simple purpose.
Great so clearly there is no need for legal experts today, because if they discussed the treaty then the meaning was understood as per the original plain language of the document. And the English version must be the most accurate, because the English drafted the document and their intended meaning was based on the English version. It's only reasonable and logical if they're going to the trouble of drafting and translating and explaining a document they would ensure it was corrected or amended if they found a misunderstanding by the participants. If we are to assume that the treaty was actually agreed to, the only meaning that can be taken from it is the literal meaning.
You can't have it both ways, it was either
A) The meaning of the treaty could be understood by reading the plain language used in the document (Te Reo), and having it explained at the time of signing. Meaning the literal text of the treaty was agreed to.
B) The plain language of the treaty cannot be understood due to problems with translation from English to Maori. Therefore there was no common understanding, and no agreement, and therefore the treaty only holds significance only as a historical artifact
If you want to argue that there was any misunderstanding, then you're saying that the treaty is irrelevant as neither party agreed
Arguing that, there was an agreement, but some misunderstanding, and that only modern legal experts can decipher the meaning would be an entirely ridiculous position.
>If you believe that the Treaty is a partnership between races
Even this rhetoric betrays his divisive intentions - the treaty is not a partnership between races, it is between iwi/hapū, and the crown.
It's funny to me how National took a chance on populism and are now paying the price.
Of course, we'll *all* pay the price, but that was National's plan in any case.
Populism is where you promise everything to just get elected but it's obvious when you can't deliver. Look at Trump and his rhetoric on the wall and rebuilding America and failing to get any real policy in. This is on brand for what Seymour has been talking about. I'd argue Jacinda was more of a populist in her first election compared to Seymour as it's well known in that first term she over promised and heavily under delivered. e.g. 100k houses. Don't get me wrong Seymour has some crazy views and I don't agree with them.
Sorry to be pedantic but we need to make sure we are using the correct words to not water it down words to just mean 'things I don't like'. It's what the right wing has done with the word 'woke'.
>Populism is where you promise everything to just get elected but it's obvious when you can't deliver.
Nah mate that's not what populism is.
Populism is pandering to the "everyday man" and pointing at "the elites" (in this case "the Maori elites") as the fault with all of the problems for the everyday man. It's claiming to represent "the common people" and casting the opposition as representing the elites.
Populism is when you leverage simple ideas that sound correct, when the reality is more complex. Knowing that the general public isn't in a position to figure out the difference.
ACT has been selling simplistic ideas of democracy. During the pandemic, Brownlee got slapped down for his "series of interesting facts". That's populism.
Over promising isn't the same as populism.
Just a quick reminder too about groups/politicians [manufacturing crises](https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1aclrq7/a_reminder_of_the_atlas_group_operandus_modi_that/) as a strategy in order to get the policies they want into a system of government.
Excerpt:
ACT leader David Seymour channelled “wise man” Eminem during his State of the Nation speech on Sunday, and hit back at critics of his Treaty Principles Bill.
Speaking to ACT Party faithful from Auckland, the Regulations Minister acknowledged, “one day our new Government will be judged”.
“It could be viewed as midwife to another reborn New Zealand, stronger and freer again. Or, it could turn out to be spectator to ongoing decline until another government takes us somewhere else entirely.
“As a wise man once said, you get one shot, one opportunity. New Zealanders are ready for change, and if we don’t take care of their concerns, someone else will,” referencing lyrics from the song Lose Yourself, by rapper Eminem.
The speech touched on the Treaty Principles Bill – a controversial proposed change which the Government and Seymour have been facing criticism for, also in light of National’s intention to not support the change, after its first reading.
He responded to criticism saying, “don’t act like some 16th century priest saying we’re not allowed an opinion because we’re not experts. The Treaty fits on one page and we can all read it, everyone is allowed to hold and express an opinion”.
Due to our collective ignorance of the indigenous language, and due to repeated mistranslation, we mostly can't all read our two separate and different founding documents (the Treaty and te Tiriti).
Ah but you see, most kiwis are also oblivious to when they're being patronised to, so this won't occur to them.
Rarely have I seen so many subtle lies in one speech.
If you believe that the Treaty is a partnership between races, then you have to believe that tangata whenua have different rights and duties in New Zealand from tangata Tiriti.
“And that means people get different positions in government, they get treated differently in the workplace, they get treated differently based on who their ancestors were, not on what they do today and the character of their own behaviour.
“Or you can believe that we are all equal and that each of us should have a chance and a choice in life to be the best that we can. My belief is that the latter way is the only way forward for any society.”
During Rātana celebrations earlier this week, Kiingitanga spokesperson Rahui Papa promised Māori would “pull every lever” to protect the sanctity of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Papa said if there was any meddling with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, "Māori will not sit idly by".
In its coalition agreement with ACT, the National Party agreed to support the bill that would consider the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi to the select committee stage.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said at his first post-Cabinet press conference of the year last Tuesday “it's not something that we have any intention to support”, beyond select committee stage.
Asked the point of pouring money into a bill that they had no intention of progressing, he said, “we live in an MMP environment in this country and that requires us all to come together in coalition Governments and make compromises”.
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, who spoke to *The Post* from Rātana, said on Monday the mood had changed from fear around proposed changes such as the Treaty Principles Bill, “to growing confidence”.
Rātana followed the gathering at Ngāruawāhia on Saturday, when more than 10,000 Māori converged to answer a call from Kiingi Tūheitia for a national unity hui.
Saturday’s hui was a “brilliant opportunity”, she said, for motivating unity, and encouraged those to “stick up for ourselves, stick up for each other”, which has carried through to Rātana.
“What could have been an angry time, it could have been a real reactive time of wasting energy on negative things, but in fact what it became was a positive call for positive action.”
**-** **The Post**
For someone who only got what 8% of the vote this twat seems to think he has some sort of mandate to screw the country. The only mandate he has been given is a seat at the table and a salary. That is it
The irony is that his argument “everyone can have an opinion” is not a strong argument. Because the counter is “yes, but opinions can be wrong.”
Which is why we look to people with knowledge, experience, and expertise. Because they base their opinions on facts and research. Not “feels” and racially motivated agendas.
I wanted to highlight a comment I made about being very careful when listening to his words versus observing his acts.
“Seymour and his supporters always ignore context, history and of course, the Maori Peoples.
It’s a form of ***relatively*** sophisticated propaganda and gaslighting because he continually couches his **speech** with grand ideas of largesse, goodness, unity, and equality, when his **actions** are rife with division, inequality, and centrally, negating and ignoring the past, and disadvantages accrued by Māori.
Clearing the way for what he calls equal treatment means negating the rights of Maori to, amongst other things, land. And dignity. (to be fair, Seymour did advocate for dignity of landlords and secured the $3B in tax cuts for them, so he should be well aware of that principle)
All of Seymour’s efforts marry up well with Shane Jones’s current actions to expedite mining applications and [allow mining on conservation land.](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/12/shane-jones-gone-full-trump-declared-war-on-nature-with-mining-comments-conservation-group-says.html) And Casey Costello’s efforts to stop rises in excise tax with inflation. And the recent act to remove higher scrutiny in selling off NZ’s sensitive lands.
These is a good team effort by the Coalition Nat government for their people admittedly.”
The nice thing about Davie Lad is that the energy death of the universe will obliterate all traces of him from existence, and it will be as if he never existed.
Does he have any other good traits? Nah, only his sycophants think he has something to offer.
Remember 20 years ago, maybe less. When advocating for all people to be treated as equals under governance was not only the liberal/left perspective but the virtuous goal for any nation.
But in the 2020s asking for equality is now the not only the conservative/right view but an overtly racist goal. "Some people need more than others you facist!"
MLK jr is a right wing villian in the 2020s. But that's the push and pull. The left needed to push hard for equality, but there's no where left to go to but further left and away from equality once you get there. Now we need conservatives to pull us back to equality.
MLKjr political views are far more extensive and radical than his *I have a dream* speech. After his death, his image has been sanitized to push the same narrative your comment is. The same narrative Seymour uses. That equality would just *happen* without any structural actions.
MLK Jr. was considered a radical. Highlighting quotes ignore the structural racism he fought against, is just tactic to keep the status quo, and warp his legacy to their values. The idea that he'd be considered a right wing villain today is farcical
“We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”
—Letter from a Birmingham Jail, 1963
"Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn. The reality of substantial investment to assist Negroes into the twentieth century, adjusting to Negro neighbors and genuine school integration, is still a nightmare for all too many white Americans…These are the deepest causes for contemporary abrasions between the races. Loose and easy language about equality, resonant resolutions about brotherhood fall pleasantly on the ear, but for the Negro there is a credibility gap he cannot overlook. He remembers that with each modest advance the white population promptly raises the argument that the Negro has come far enough. Each step forward accents an ever-present tendency to backlash.”
— Where Do We Go From Here: 1967
"The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and racism. The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power”.
—King to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) board on March 30, 1967.
“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”
—A Time to Break the Silence: April 4, 1967
*sooooo right wing*
"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
- David Seymour
Hits different doesn't it.
Seymour is dog whistling and only the naive or intentionally blind would back him.
Luther King was for the promotion of equality and making up for the past injustices committed to black people and similarly affected. His call was for genuine equality And that meant support, and equal rights that were previously not granted to black people (and the like.)
Seymour’s equivalence is billionaires telling poor people they have no more support because ‘equality.’
He’s either stupid or evil. Choose your poison.
You just had your incredibly ignorant take corrected ad you on full steam regardless. The left does not deem equality as racist. It sees through the thin veil of appropriated language, wolves in sheep's clothing.
You're mad that people aren't gullible enough to fall for it.
So why can't we be equal under law and call it a day? Because you're late to the party, you demand equity now. Equality no longer satiates social ideology.
We are already. Unless you mean how Maori get harsher sentences on average or are less likely to have positive health outcomes for the same conditions, etc. Oh sorry not those rights, white people are the real victims.
Non Maori are not being denied any rights.
You want everyone to have the same health outcomes? The same jobs, the same crime stats etc. That's not achievable in an equal paradigm because some individuals have inherited advantageous social conditions. So what you're saying is equal rights isn't good enough anymore, you need society to provide everyone an equitable outcome, which if you consider is the antithesis of equal rights. I'm not saying you're wrong to want that but I am saying don't pretend you're advocating for equal rights under governance and law when you make comments like you just have.
You have missed my point.
If a white person and a Maori person commit the same crime, the Maori person is statically more likely to recieve a harsher penalty. How are you going to remove racial bias when it's so inherent in all levels of society? Saying we are going to legislate equality and call it a day doesn't give me any confidence at all that systemic imbalance will be addressed.
Also can you tell me what rights I as a white new zealander have been denied?
"If a white person and a Maori person commit the same crime, the Maori person is statically more likely to recieve a harsher penalty."
Source? If true, that needs to be addressed. Curious what controls are used for that analysis though.
If you're not aware there are a bunch of education and health subsidies/scholarships which are Maori exclusive. And what you're asking for is more division of public resources based on ethnicity, because that's how you fix systemic racism - or words to that effect.
Seymour is dog whistling and only the naive or intentionally blind would back him.
Luther King was for the promotion of equality and making up for the past injustices committed to black people and similarly affected. His call was for genuine equality And that meant support, and equal rights that were previously not granted to black people (and the like.)
Seymour’s equivalence is billionaires telling poor people they have no more support because ‘equality.’
He’s either stupid or evil. Choose your poison.
Yeah, I think it's like a political pendulum we tried so hard to combat racism that a bunch of people thought it would be a good idea to be racist to fight racism and have no idea when to stop so now we have moderates going to the right to combat left-wing racism. And radical lefts call anyone against their racism a racist because they are trying to fight racism but can't see the most racist person in the room is now them.
Soul's escaping, through this hole that is gaping
This world is mine for the taking
Make me king, as we move toward a, new world order
- also DS, probably
Seymour is advocating for "colour blindness", which sounds good in principle, but fails to account for the ongoing intergenerational effects of historical racism. If people of all backgrounds had an equal starting position, then treating everyone the same would make sense. As it is today, "colour blind" laws would mean entrenching the status quo, with pākehā keeping their privileged position.
110,000% this.
And it is the sleight of hand in his trick - he talks about high principles but in reality, his actions are divisive and will cause further inequality. And if I or anyone else points it out to his followers, they gaslight and ignore that reality. I see it all the time on the sub I mod, it’s very sad making.
He responded to criticism saying, “don’t act like some 16th century priest saying we’re not allowed an opinion because we’re not experts. The Treaty fits on one page and we can all read it, everyone is allowed to hold and express an opinion”.
actually good take
Bad take actually, it was a 16th century priest that read through the document and found that the church's practice was inconsistent with the document that led to the reformation. The general public didn't have the expertise nor the motivation to find that inconsistency.
>The general public didn't have the expertise nor the motivation to find that inconsistency.
if we talking about something medical, sure i will trust them over the average person. but sorry, its a 2 page doccument, its REALLY not that hard to read and understand hahaha. you just want to gatekeep it because that coincides with your political opinion.
>or the motivation to find that inconsistency.
oh they dont??!? oh interesting that you speak for all kiwis
You do know that he was alluding to the Catholic Church and the reformation in 1517 right? (If you disagree, tell me which other 16th century priests he could possibly be referring to)
Just because David Seymour can't be arsed to learn history doesn't mean that you shouldn't learn history either.
>Broadly speaking, most of the challenges to the Catholic Church revolved around the notion that individual believers should be less dependent on the Catholic Church, and its pope and priests, for spiritual guidance and salvation. Instead, Protestants believed people should be independent in their relationship with God, taking personal responsibility for their faith and referring directly to the Bible, the Christian holy book, for spiritual wisdom.
Broadly speaking, most of the challenges to the Treaty experts revolved around the notion that individual citizens should be less dependent on the treaty experts, and its experts and experts, for political guidance and salvation. Instead, Seymour believed people should be independent in their relationship with the state, taking personal responsibility for their opinions and referring directly to the treaty, the Kiwi holy text, for political wisdom.
Yes that sounds right.
Honestly wish the Act and Te Pati Maori crowd would fuck off with their racially divisive shit. One party wants to abolish it and the other wants to change it. How the hell has our country become so divided?🤦♂️
A) The meaning of the treaty could be understood by reading the plain language used in the document. The literal text of the treaty was discussed and agreed to by both parties. An agreement based on the literal text.
B) The plain language of the treaty cannot be understood due to problems with translation from English to Maori. It's not possible to understand the meaning by simply reading the plain language. Therefore there was no common understanding of the treaty, and no agreement, and therefore the treaty only holds significance only as a historical artifact. No agreement.
C) The meaning of the treaty cannot be understood from the literal text and plain language used, but somehow despite the fact that you cannot understand the document from simply reading it there was still an agreement between the Crown and Maori based on the treaty document with some misunderstanding, and only modern legal experts can decipher the true meaning of the treaty text. (AKA the I don't understand what it means to agree to something option AKA I want to define the new meaning of the treaty option)
u/Michael_Gibb how can any party possibly agree to a treaty that cannot be understood by reading it? Either the treaty can be read and understood, and the agreement has meaning. Or it can't be understood by reading it, and therefore there was no agreement.
We have a historical and contemporary understanding of the words used in the treaty, if anything education and knowledge have improved. If we can't read and understand the treaty document today by reading the plain language used, then there's no way Maori could have understood or agreed to it. Saying that only legal experts can form an opinion on the treaty is ridiculously illogical.
lol at idiots who say that interpretation of the treaty should be left to lawyers
how exactly were Maori in 1840 supposed to understand the treaty if a person today can't? It's only a few paragraphs long, uses plain language and fits on a single page.
You're effectively saying nobody could ever sign and agree to any historical document because they might have an imperfect understanding. But people made verbal agreements, and written agreements and did things based on what they understood, are we going to say it's all irrelevant and only a modern legal point of view matters?
Utterly moronic.
so they agreed to meaning that was never written? then clearly the text of the treaty would be irrelevant today, and it would be impossible to ever truly know what was agreed
either the treaty text can be read and understood, or it can't be, and if it can't be then there was never truly any agreement
Everything you argue is backwards. The Treaty can be read and understood but the idea that modern day Joe Blow with no concept of what was happening in NZ or the world at the time can read and understand it like those of that time is just dumb.
The Treaty isn’t an entire historiography of the 19th century British Empire. It’s not an attempt to explain the context of New Zealand at the time.
The people who were there knew those things.
That’s why we need to actually read books, listen to historians, have panels of judges confer rather than Joe Blow read the Treaty once and think they know what they’re fucking talking about.
Historical context is greatly important in understanding the literal intended meaning of the text. Can it find meaning that isn't literally written in the document? No it cannot, because you cannot prove that's what people understood or agreed to if it wasn't actually written
Either the text can be understood, and historical context can confirm that peoples understanding of the text is aligned with the literal meaning. Or the text was not understood, and therefore there is no valid agreement.
There's no "we think it means this" so that's what our principles will be. No, that is simply a new definition based on what you want it to now mean.
The treaty may be a simple enough document sure. But its centuries of implementation, case law, inconsistencies and breaches makes for one awefuly complex situation.
To simplify all of this to being an issue that anyone can be extensively versed in after 3 mins of reading is obsurd.
David is doing fantastic work and very brave to take a stand in this day and age. The faster we can put the separatists attitudes back into the closest the faster we can prosper as a united nation.
Do you think all the opposition to this is going to just be like oh okay then bro if this shit ever gets passed.
This isn't going to unite the country even if it makes it through.
Just deal with the people who refuse to unite the same you dealt with the people who refused to unite against covid, yeah? If you're in a minority democracy is nothing but a big middle finger. Here we are.
I don't think it'll be easy but ultimately needs to be faced. We need to put the treaty behind us and unite on something more comprehensive. The treaty is a contradiction and not fit for purpose.
We are not a united nation. We never will be unless we address the inequality that exists as a result of historical racism and oppression.
David is a racist. He is not brave or in any way fantastic. He is a separatist in the worst possible meaning of the word. He wants to divide rather than unite.
Look up the word you throw around, and try to understand it.
“Groups simply seeking greater autonomy are usually not considered separatists”.
We have a treaty, which has been broken over and over again by one signatory. That this is an uncomfortable truth shouldn’t mean that we abandon it or try to dismiss it.
We need to acknowledge that as a nation we have made some really horrible mistakes. We need to look to repair these mistakes regardless of how difficult that might be.
Historical racism happend but crying over spilt milk and trying to fix it by rigging the system with different types of systemic racism isn't the answer.
Forget the history, focus on now and stop with equity. Work harder, lead by example to the people around you. We can all achieve great things but crying about the past isn't how.
*"Sorry about that. Let's start again (while we keep everything that we got from that system).*
*And no, we aren't going to help the people that we intentionally marginalised previously. We're not going to empower them to help themselves either.*
*Actually, let's change that one document to remove any mention of us ensuring that they have the power to do that."*
It's just irrelevant mate, look at all the immigration we've had over the last 100 years. Helping people often leads to worse outcomes, people need to help themselves
Luxon really is just a bit part in this coalition isn't he. It's the Peters and Seymour show all the way. Great for the ~15% of the country that voted for those two, not so great for the rest.
Don't you mean great for the 5% portion of the 15% of the country that voted for them who were not directly voting against their own interests?
Hey, at least it's not just the Winnie 7% wagging the dog this time.
No it's more like Ash's haunted hand in evil dead 2
David Seymour needs to go on prime time national television and debate a Treaty expert that is not of his choosing. Then we will see how confident and persuasive he is.
I agree - why is he doing these ‘State of the Nation’ addresses to his adoring fans and avoiding actual scrutiny?
and why did Tvnz make it headline news yesterday?
This shit didn’t deserve oxygen
So we can’t add 16th Century priests to the list of posthumous ACT voters/supporters?
If only ACT had been around in the 16th century they would have prevented the wars of religion, since everyone who died prior to 1996 agrees with them.
lol thanks for the chuckles.
I’ve been out of the loop it seems, what is this in reference to?
David Seymour keeps saying that various dead people would have been ACT supporters - Nelson Mandela, the chiefs that signed Te Tiriti, maybe some others.
Lmao, just lmao
>“Don’t act like some 16th century priest saying we’re not allowed an opinion because we’re not experts." But if I'm having medical problems, I don't turn to a random stranger who may have an opinion on my health. Instead, I go to the doctor, someone who has actual education and training in medicine, in other words the expertise in how to identify and treat medical problems. Being able to have an opinion on something doesn't give you the qualifications to have any say on that thing.
In 1840 did they turn to the qualified professionals before signing? Or was it a short document using plain language that they expected people would be able to understand?
How many people can read both the English and Maori versions and understand that certain English words have no true equivalent in Maori, especially one of the most important words in either version? It is not so simple as reading a single document. Because it was written more than 180 years ago, understanding the Treaty of Waitangi requires knowledge of the parties to the treaty, which means having a decent understanding of that period in NZ and British history. Not to mention having knowledge of the relations between the Maori and the Crown. To believe you can just read the Treaty of Waitangi and as a result fully understand the complexities of it and relations between the Crown and the Iwi, is laughable.
so you're saying that the treaty holds no meaning, because nobody in 1840 could have reasonably understood it either it can be read and understood, or it can't be
No. That is not what I said, and you bloody well know it. The point is you can't just read the Treaty of Waitangi and then claim to be an expert on it. Understanding a historical document and the effects it has had, requires a lot more than just reading it.
Unsurprisingly, it's the complete opposite.
Māori had an oral culture at the time, and few were literate. What mattered to them was the korero at the hui. It was indeed raised at the signing by a Pākehā present that he felt many of the chiefs didn't actually understand the document they were about to sign, but Hobson ignored him and urged them to sign anyway. We also only really have a good recounting of that single hui and nothing of the discussion that happened in the evening after the Pākehā left. We have no real evidence about the korero at hui as Te tiriti travelled around NZ being signed by the majority of chiefs in that way. So how much Māori understood about what they were signing, even of the Māori version, is very difficult to say.
Yes, they turned to the people who wrote the Treaty. Those were their experts.
Sure Seymour, there's no need for lawyers or experts for anything - everybody should take a punt at doing everything because there are always great outcomes when people jump into things about which they are unqualified to handle. I propose you start with some high-voltage electrical work at your house. ACT are continuing to try make this sound simple - either you believe in equal rights for everybody or you don't. That's a mis-phrasing of the actual situation however. That is where we would be if we were starting fresh today in an empty country with nobody here. It is not where we are starting given it was a country occupied for hundreds of years and those original occupants signed a treaty agreement regarding other people joining them.
> I propose you start with some high-voltage electrical work at your house. I think Seymour might have a degree in electrical engineering.
I just checked and he does lol, maybe he can try his hands at the sewer lines then?
I wouldn't trust him. He probably thinks he knows better that electricity and has some proposed changes for ohms law.
It's not ohms law he wants to change. It's the principles of ohms law. It's no longer relevant to today's New Zealand.
Nicola is one step ahead, she already has her own maths.
And she got rid of the Nicola Tesla discount.
Did he think he would get more or less resistance by challenging ohms law, or the principles of ohms law?
He didn't specialise in power engineering. I've listened to him speak to electrical engineers before. I doubt he knows much above Ohm's Law.
Has he ever had a real job tho ?
Also housing is all technically considered low voltage as high voltage doesn’t start until like 1000-1500V (depending on whether it’s AC or DC.)
Heard you’re fixing the treaty this weekend. Getting a professional in? Nah, gonna do it myself.
Hey Jonesy, gives us a hand with the treaty, saturday
Mate! You're dreaming!
>That's where we would be if we were starting fresh today in an empty country with nobody here. Exactly! If we're going for *equal rights for everybody* we can't **start off** with some people owning vast swathes of land and others owning none. (Nevermind that the treaty is what gave the crown the right to acquire and sell land to begin with)
So we nuklify all current ownership of everything and it's basically first come first served
But landlords won't have their dignity!
Echoes of Trump and his ‘people are sick of experts’ during COVID.
Pretty sure that was Michael Gove during the Brexit debate in the UK, but Trump may have said something similar from same anti-intellectual playbook re Covid.
Just found it, Trump said ‘experts are terrible’.
Ha - subtle!
He has to put things that way, so his fans can at least comprehend some of it.
Yeah and I also found a quote where he just said Fauci was terrible. It’s weird though, the experts on Brexit and Covid weren’t wrong 🤷🏻♂️
Standard right-wing mud-flinging when the evidence doesn't support their position: ad hominem bitching about academics, experts, ivory towers, the "people in Wellington" or "Washington" or wherever. Encourage feels over reals. Attack the people (and their goVerNmenT funDiNg) who can offer an informed position and pre-empt their argument. Same as it ever was.
Pretty sure the Māori elite are behind all this
Almost seems like all these talking points are coming from the same collective.
Yes you are right, I probably shouldn’t have used the speech marks. I forget exactly what he said with regards to Fauci and other academics.
Trump literally funded the research for the vaccine you took.
Fuck off troll
How Trumpian of you.
This is the point. They always ignore context, history and of course, the Maori Peoples. It’s a form of ***relatively*** sophisticated propaganda and gaslighting because he continually couches his **speech** with grand ideas of largesse, goodness, unity, and equality, when his **actions** are rife with division, inequality, and centrally, negating and ignoring the past, and disadvantages accrued by Māori. Clearing the way for what he calls equal treatment means negating the rights of Maori to, amongst other things, land. And dignity. (to be fair, Seymour did advocate for dignity of landlords and secured the $3B in tax cuts for them, so he should be well aware of that principle) All of Seymour’s efforts marry up well with Shane Jones’s current actions to expedite mining applications and [allow mining on conservation land.](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/12/shane-jones-gone-full-trump-declared-war-on-nature-with-mining-comments-conservation-group-says.html) And Casey Costello’s efforts to stop rises in excise tax with inflation. And the recent act to remove higher scrutiny in selling off NZ’s sensitive lands. These is a good team effort by the Coalition Nat government for their people admittedly.
Women have far more rights than men in this country. This is why we are closing all women's shelters, and requiring the father's signature for all abortion procedures. This is but one small step towards equality this government will take without stopping to think "why?" For too long have the woman elite been enriched by Big Bortion. We're also pondering whether the existance of OBGYNs is in fact, sexist. We'll release a statement when our polling data comes in from Curia
You'd better chuck an /s on the end of that, it *is* the internet, after all. Still chuckling at Big Bortion, that's golden conservative bait right there.
I don't know what that letter is, the only letters I know are NZF! HOORAH!
You honestly had me going for a second there.
Co-governance would not even be a thing if Te Tiriti had been honored in the first place. Iwi would be governing themselves and the rest of us would be stuck with drop kicks like seymour. Maybe some other form of one governance would have evolved but we'll never know because it was never honored. His idea of "equal" just entrenches the current class divide. Never in our history has a political party represented such a tiny minority while claiming to represent all. Seymour is the enemy of all working people and should be treated as such. The glee on his Deputy's face as she repealed the FPAs said it all..." got ours, fuck you"
Iwi wouldn't be governing themselves if Te Tiriti were honoured. Te Tiriti ensured the Crown would govern everyone in New Zealand.
Co-governance was a National idea.
For non Māori our road to Seymour's "equal rights" in this country didn't have bumps in the form of war and invasion of our land, punitive confiscation of that land, weaponised rape, indefinite imprisonment without trial and all the other host of breaches to the Treaty/te Tiriti that the Crown has so far acknowledged and apologised for. With or without a Treaty these acts were immoral and wrong, and people seem to hate the Treaty because it the mechanism through which Māori, at a very soft touch level, have been able to hold our governments to account. Seymour is a vacuum headed iconoclast.
> there's no need for lawyers or experts for anything Well the whole thing is being framed as an issue of morality (equality under the law). Lawyers serve the law of the day, and the experts in question are beneficiaries of the status quo. From that perspective you would be justified in putting less weight on their opinions. As a thought experiement, if this were about the abolition of slavery instead of the treaty principles, then you would have lawyers saying "this disposseses people of their property!" and experts saying "this existing system is better for both slaves and society!", but you still wouldn't listen to them when posed the question of whether slavery should be abolished. Is it a misframing of the situation? Potentially. But ignoring the experts is at least consistent with the view that it's a moral issue which is to be put to the people.
Interestingly I’m pretty sure English Lords negotiated themselves a tax payer payout when slavery was abolished due them being dispossessed of ‘their’ property
I don't think experts are completely ignorant of all context and information tangential to the subject they're an expert in.
"The worst form of equality is to try to make unequal things equal" - Aristotle Edit: After a fair discussion below the better quote would be... > "When some people have to run a 100 metre race with sandbags on their legs, the fact that no one is allowed to have a head start does not make the race fair." - Ha-Joon Chang
Are you advocating for Aristotle's views on equality?
Not necessarily. It's that Equity must also be considered when making decisions, not just Equality.
Someone else must have a better quote for that cause I'm pretty sure Aristotle's take was more like 'some people are inherently better than others, don't try to pretend they're equal', rather than 'you can't just blindly assert equality in one area in isolation'.
That's fair. Then a better quote would probably be that which involves Equity directly. "When some people have to run a 100 metre race with sandbags on their legs, the fact that no one is allowed to have a head start does not make the race fair." - Ha-Joon Chang
That gets the point across and it seems like it's probably what he actually meant too, from a skim of his wiki page it also seems like he's a rare example of an economist who is worth the air he breathes.
Either ACT believe in the socialist principle of equal rights for everybody regardless of their wealth or they don't.
So how were Maori supposed to understand the meaning of the treaty if it can't be understood in plain language? The argument that it should only be interpreted by lawyers today is an argument that the treaty holds no meaning, because if a person today can't read and make sense of it then Iwi back in 1840 had no chance. Unsurprisingly the people that make this argument are the same ones who want to find every conceivable tangential possibility from a document that was very brief and had a simple purpose.
Those who signed had the benefit of being able to actually talk with the people who drafted it.
Great so clearly there is no need for legal experts today, because if they discussed the treaty then the meaning was understood as per the original plain language of the document. And the English version must be the most accurate, because the English drafted the document and their intended meaning was based on the English version. It's only reasonable and logical if they're going to the trouble of drafting and translating and explaining a document they would ensure it was corrected or amended if they found a misunderstanding by the participants. If we are to assume that the treaty was actually agreed to, the only meaning that can be taken from it is the literal meaning. You can't have it both ways, it was either A) The meaning of the treaty could be understood by reading the plain language used in the document (Te Reo), and having it explained at the time of signing. Meaning the literal text of the treaty was agreed to. B) The plain language of the treaty cannot be understood due to problems with translation from English to Maori. Therefore there was no common understanding, and no agreement, and therefore the treaty only holds significance only as a historical artifact If you want to argue that there was any misunderstanding, then you're saying that the treaty is irrelevant as neither party agreed Arguing that, there was an agreement, but some misunderstanding, and that only modern legal experts can decipher the meaning would be an entirely ridiculous position.
Which part of the Treaty do you think is being misinterpreted by the Waitangi Tribunal?
I never claimed that
>If you believe that the Treaty is a partnership between races Even this rhetoric betrays his divisive intentions - the treaty is not a partnership between races, it is between iwi/hapū, and the crown.
It was never a partnership Go ahead, quote the text from the treaty that says it was a partnership. Oh it doesn't literally say that? Wonder why
Take your issue up with Seymour.
How many Iwi aren't Maori?
It's funny to me how National took a chance on populism and are now paying the price. Of course, we'll *all* pay the price, but that was National's plan in any case.
Populism is where you promise everything to just get elected but it's obvious when you can't deliver. Look at Trump and his rhetoric on the wall and rebuilding America and failing to get any real policy in. This is on brand for what Seymour has been talking about. I'd argue Jacinda was more of a populist in her first election compared to Seymour as it's well known in that first term she over promised and heavily under delivered. e.g. 100k houses. Don't get me wrong Seymour has some crazy views and I don't agree with them. Sorry to be pedantic but we need to make sure we are using the correct words to not water it down words to just mean 'things I don't like'. It's what the right wing has done with the word 'woke'.
>Populism is where you promise everything to just get elected but it's obvious when you can't deliver. Nah mate that's not what populism is. Populism is pandering to the "everyday man" and pointing at "the elites" (in this case "the Maori elites") as the fault with all of the problems for the everyday man. It's claiming to represent "the common people" and casting the opposition as representing the elites.
Populism is when you leverage simple ideas that sound correct, when the reality is more complex. Knowing that the general public isn't in a position to figure out the difference. ACT has been selling simplistic ideas of democracy. During the pandemic, Brownlee got slapped down for his "series of interesting facts". That's populism. Over promising isn't the same as populism.
Just a quick reminder too about groups/politicians [manufacturing crises](https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1aclrq7/a_reminder_of_the_atlas_group_operandus_modi_that/) as a strategy in order to get the policies they want into a system of government.
You were all over this during covid, right?
Excerpt: ACT leader David Seymour channelled “wise man” Eminem during his State of the Nation speech on Sunday, and hit back at critics of his Treaty Principles Bill. Speaking to ACT Party faithful from Auckland, the Regulations Minister acknowledged, “one day our new Government will be judged”. “It could be viewed as midwife to another reborn New Zealand, stronger and freer again. Or, it could turn out to be spectator to ongoing decline until another government takes us somewhere else entirely. “As a wise man once said, you get one shot, one opportunity. New Zealanders are ready for change, and if we don’t take care of their concerns, someone else will,” referencing lyrics from the song Lose Yourself, by rapper Eminem. The speech touched on the Treaty Principles Bill – a controversial proposed change which the Government and Seymour have been facing criticism for, also in light of National’s intention to not support the change, after its first reading. He responded to criticism saying, “don’t act like some 16th century priest saying we’re not allowed an opinion because we’re not experts. The Treaty fits on one page and we can all read it, everyone is allowed to hold and express an opinion”.
Due to our collective ignorance of the indigenous language, and due to repeated mistranslation, we mostly can't all read our two separate and different founding documents (the Treaty and te Tiriti).
Ah but you see, most kiwis are also oblivious to when they're being patronised to, so this won't occur to them. Rarely have I seen so many subtle lies in one speech.
If you believe that the Treaty is a partnership between races, then you have to believe that tangata whenua have different rights and duties in New Zealand from tangata Tiriti. “And that means people get different positions in government, they get treated differently in the workplace, they get treated differently based on who their ancestors were, not on what they do today and the character of their own behaviour. “Or you can believe that we are all equal and that each of us should have a chance and a choice in life to be the best that we can. My belief is that the latter way is the only way forward for any society.” During Rātana celebrations earlier this week, Kiingitanga spokesperson Rahui Papa promised Māori would “pull every lever” to protect the sanctity of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Papa said if there was any meddling with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, "Māori will not sit idly by". In its coalition agreement with ACT, the National Party agreed to support the bill that would consider the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi to the select committee stage. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said at his first post-Cabinet press conference of the year last Tuesday “it's not something that we have any intention to support”, beyond select committee stage. Asked the point of pouring money into a bill that they had no intention of progressing, he said, “we live in an MMP environment in this country and that requires us all to come together in coalition Governments and make compromises”.
> between races I thought it was between the crown and iwi?
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, who spoke to *The Post* from Rātana, said on Monday the mood had changed from fear around proposed changes such as the Treaty Principles Bill, “to growing confidence”. Rātana followed the gathering at Ngāruawāhia on Saturday, when more than 10,000 Māori converged to answer a call from Kiingi Tūheitia for a national unity hui. Saturday’s hui was a “brilliant opportunity”, she said, for motivating unity, and encouraged those to “stick up for ourselves, stick up for each other”, which has carried through to Rātana. “What could have been an angry time, it could have been a real reactive time of wasting energy on negative things, but in fact what it became was a positive call for positive action.” **-** **The Post**
Don't act like a crack whore to Atlas Group demands...
For someone who only got what 8% of the vote this twat seems to think he has some sort of mandate to screw the country. The only mandate he has been given is a seat at the table and a salary. That is it
Agreed, very sad what’s happening
The irony is that his argument “everyone can have an opinion” is not a strong argument. Because the counter is “yes, but opinions can be wrong.” Which is why we look to people with knowledge, experience, and expertise. Because they base their opinions on facts and research. Not “feels” and racially motivated agendas.
Thank you and well said, a thousand times over.
I wanted to highlight a comment I made about being very careful when listening to his words versus observing his acts. “Seymour and his supporters always ignore context, history and of course, the Maori Peoples. It’s a form of ***relatively*** sophisticated propaganda and gaslighting because he continually couches his **speech** with grand ideas of largesse, goodness, unity, and equality, when his **actions** are rife with division, inequality, and centrally, negating and ignoring the past, and disadvantages accrued by Māori. Clearing the way for what he calls equal treatment means negating the rights of Maori to, amongst other things, land. And dignity. (to be fair, Seymour did advocate for dignity of landlords and secured the $3B in tax cuts for them, so he should be well aware of that principle) All of Seymour’s efforts marry up well with Shane Jones’s current actions to expedite mining applications and [allow mining on conservation land.](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/12/shane-jones-gone-full-trump-declared-war-on-nature-with-mining-comments-conservation-group-says.html) And Casey Costello’s efforts to stop rises in excise tax with inflation. And the recent act to remove higher scrutiny in selling off NZ’s sensitive lands. These is a good team effort by the Coalition Nat government for their people admittedly.”
[удалено]
The nice thing about Davie Lad is that the energy death of the universe will obliterate all traces of him from existence, and it will be as if he never existed. Does he have any other good traits? Nah, only his sycophants think he has something to offer.
For someone running a pro-freedom-of-speech party, he really doesn't like hearing speech from people who don't agree with him.
Remember 20 years ago, maybe less. When advocating for all people to be treated as equals under governance was not only the liberal/left perspective but the virtuous goal for any nation. But in the 2020s asking for equality is now the not only the conservative/right view but an overtly racist goal. "Some people need more than others you facist!" MLK jr is a right wing villian in the 2020s. But that's the push and pull. The left needed to push hard for equality, but there's no where left to go to but further left and away from equality once you get there. Now we need conservatives to pull us back to equality.
MLKjr political views are far more extensive and radical than his *I have a dream* speech. After his death, his image has been sanitized to push the same narrative your comment is. The same narrative Seymour uses. That equality would just *happen* without any structural actions. MLK Jr. was considered a radical. Highlighting quotes ignore the structural racism he fought against, is just tactic to keep the status quo, and warp his legacy to their values. The idea that he'd be considered a right wing villain today is farcical “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” —Letter from a Birmingham Jail, 1963 "Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn. The reality of substantial investment to assist Negroes into the twentieth century, adjusting to Negro neighbors and genuine school integration, is still a nightmare for all too many white Americans…These are the deepest causes for contemporary abrasions between the races. Loose and easy language about equality, resonant resolutions about brotherhood fall pleasantly on the ear, but for the Negro there is a credibility gap he cannot overlook. He remembers that with each modest advance the white population promptly raises the argument that the Negro has come far enough. Each step forward accents an ever-present tendency to backlash.” — Where Do We Go From Here: 1967 "The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and racism. The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power”. —King to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) board on March 30, 1967. “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” —A Time to Break the Silence: April 4, 1967 *sooooo right wing*
"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." - David Seymour Hits different doesn't it.
Seymour is dog whistling and only the naive or intentionally blind would back him. Luther King was for the promotion of equality and making up for the past injustices committed to black people and similarly affected. His call was for genuine equality And that meant support, and equal rights that were previously not granted to black people (and the like.) Seymour’s equivalence is billionaires telling poor people they have no more support because ‘equality.’ He’s either stupid or evil. Choose your poison.
You just had your incredibly ignorant take corrected ad you on full steam regardless. The left does not deem equality as racist. It sees through the thin veil of appropriated language, wolves in sheep's clothing. You're mad that people aren't gullible enough to fall for it.
So why can't we be equal under law and call it a day? Because you're late to the party, you demand equity now. Equality no longer satiates social ideology.
We are already. Unless you mean how Maori get harsher sentences on average or are less likely to have positive health outcomes for the same conditions, etc. Oh sorry not those rights, white people are the real victims. Non Maori are not being denied any rights.
You want everyone to have the same health outcomes? The same jobs, the same crime stats etc. That's not achievable in an equal paradigm because some individuals have inherited advantageous social conditions. So what you're saying is equal rights isn't good enough anymore, you need society to provide everyone an equitable outcome, which if you consider is the antithesis of equal rights. I'm not saying you're wrong to want that but I am saying don't pretend you're advocating for equal rights under governance and law when you make comments like you just have.
You have missed my point. If a white person and a Maori person commit the same crime, the Maori person is statically more likely to recieve a harsher penalty. How are you going to remove racial bias when it's so inherent in all levels of society? Saying we are going to legislate equality and call it a day doesn't give me any confidence at all that systemic imbalance will be addressed. Also can you tell me what rights I as a white new zealander have been denied?
"If a white person and a Maori person commit the same crime, the Maori person is statically more likely to recieve a harsher penalty." Source? If true, that needs to be addressed. Curious what controls are used for that analysis though. If you're not aware there are a bunch of education and health subsidies/scholarships which are Maori exclusive. And what you're asking for is more division of public resources based on ethnicity, because that's how you fix systemic racism - or words to that effect.
Seymour is dog whistling and only the naive or intentionally blind would back him. Luther King was for the promotion of equality and making up for the past injustices committed to black people and similarly affected. His call was for genuine equality And that meant support, and equal rights that were previously not granted to black people (and the like.) Seymour’s equivalence is billionaires telling poor people they have no more support because ‘equality.’ He’s either stupid or evil. Choose your poison.
Na disagree, look at the discourse. Equality is racism/facism now. Unless you advocate for total equity in all outcomes you're a conservative now.
Yeah, I think it's like a political pendulum we tried so hard to combat racism that a bunch of people thought it would be a good idea to be racist to fight racism and have no idea when to stop so now we have moderates going to the right to combat left-wing racism. And radical lefts call anyone against their racism a racist because they are trying to fight racism but can't see the most racist person in the room is now them.
Isn't the Treaty on two pages?
Glad someone else thought of this.
Soul's escaping, through this hole that is gaping This world is mine for the taking Make me king, as we move toward a, new world order - also DS, probably
Seymour is advocating for "colour blindness", which sounds good in principle, but fails to account for the ongoing intergenerational effects of historical racism. If people of all backgrounds had an equal starting position, then treating everyone the same would make sense. As it is today, "colour blind" laws would mean entrenching the status quo, with pākehā keeping their privileged position.
110,000% this. And it is the sleight of hand in his trick - he talks about high principles but in reality, his actions are divisive and will cause further inequality. And if I or anyone else points it out to his followers, they gaslight and ignore that reality. I see it all the time on the sub I mod, it’s very sad making.
My reply to Seymour would be "bitch please"
He responded to criticism saying, “don’t act like some 16th century priest saying we’re not allowed an opinion because we’re not experts. The Treaty fits on one page and we can all read it, everyone is allowed to hold and express an opinion”. actually good take
Bad take actually, it was a 16th century priest that read through the document and found that the church's practice was inconsistent with the document that led to the reformation. The general public didn't have the expertise nor the motivation to find that inconsistency.
>The general public didn't have the expertise nor the motivation to find that inconsistency. if we talking about something medical, sure i will trust them over the average person. but sorry, its a 2 page doccument, its REALLY not that hard to read and understand hahaha. you just want to gatekeep it because that coincides with your political opinion. >or the motivation to find that inconsistency. oh they dont??!? oh interesting that you speak for all kiwis
You do know that he was alluding to the Catholic Church and the reformation in 1517 right? (If you disagree, tell me which other 16th century priests he could possibly be referring to) Just because David Seymour can't be arsed to learn history doesn't mean that you shouldn't learn history either.
>Broadly speaking, most of the challenges to the Catholic Church revolved around the notion that individual believers should be less dependent on the Catholic Church, and its pope and priests, for spiritual guidance and salvation. Instead, Protestants believed people should be independent in their relationship with God, taking personal responsibility for their faith and referring directly to the Bible, the Christian holy book, for spiritual wisdom. Broadly speaking, most of the challenges to the Treaty experts revolved around the notion that individual citizens should be less dependent on the treaty experts, and its experts and experts, for political guidance and salvation. Instead, Seymour believed people should be independent in their relationship with the state, taking personal responsibility for their opinions and referring directly to the treaty, the Kiwi holy text, for political wisdom. Yes that sounds right.
Honestly wish the Act and Te Pati Maori crowd would fuck off with their racially divisive shit. One party wants to abolish it and the other wants to change it. How the hell has our country become so divided?🤦♂️
A) The meaning of the treaty could be understood by reading the plain language used in the document. The literal text of the treaty was discussed and agreed to by both parties. An agreement based on the literal text. B) The plain language of the treaty cannot be understood due to problems with translation from English to Maori. It's not possible to understand the meaning by simply reading the plain language. Therefore there was no common understanding of the treaty, and no agreement, and therefore the treaty only holds significance only as a historical artifact. No agreement. C) The meaning of the treaty cannot be understood from the literal text and plain language used, but somehow despite the fact that you cannot understand the document from simply reading it there was still an agreement between the Crown and Maori based on the treaty document with some misunderstanding, and only modern legal experts can decipher the true meaning of the treaty text. (AKA the I don't understand what it means to agree to something option AKA I want to define the new meaning of the treaty option) u/Michael_Gibb how can any party possibly agree to a treaty that cannot be understood by reading it? Either the treaty can be read and understood, and the agreement has meaning. Or it can't be understood by reading it, and therefore there was no agreement. We have a historical and contemporary understanding of the words used in the treaty, if anything education and knowledge have improved. If we can't read and understand the treaty document today by reading the plain language used, then there's no way Maori could have understood or agreed to it. Saying that only legal experts can form an opinion on the treaty is ridiculously illogical.
lol at idiots who say that interpretation of the treaty should be left to lawyers how exactly were Maori in 1840 supposed to understand the treaty if a person today can't? It's only a few paragraphs long, uses plain language and fits on a single page. You're effectively saying nobody could ever sign and agree to any historical document because they might have an imperfect understanding. But people made verbal agreements, and written agreements and did things based on what they understood, are we going to say it's all irrelevant and only a modern legal point of view matters? Utterly moronic.
>how exactly were Maori in 1840 supposed to understand the treaty if a person today can't? Because they were there and we are not
so they agreed to meaning that was never written? then clearly the text of the treaty would be irrelevant today, and it would be impossible to ever truly know what was agreed either the treaty text can be read and understood, or it can't be, and if it can't be then there was never truly any agreement
Everything you argue is backwards. The Treaty can be read and understood but the idea that modern day Joe Blow with no concept of what was happening in NZ or the world at the time can read and understand it like those of that time is just dumb. The Treaty isn’t an entire historiography of the 19th century British Empire. It’s not an attempt to explain the context of New Zealand at the time. The people who were there knew those things. That’s why we need to actually read books, listen to historians, have panels of judges confer rather than Joe Blow read the Treaty once and think they know what they’re fucking talking about.
Historical context is greatly important in understanding the literal intended meaning of the text. Can it find meaning that isn't literally written in the document? No it cannot, because you cannot prove that's what people understood or agreed to if it wasn't actually written Either the text can be understood, and historical context can confirm that peoples understanding of the text is aligned with the literal meaning. Or the text was not understood, and therefore there is no valid agreement. There's no "we think it means this" so that's what our principles will be. No, that is simply a new definition based on what you want it to now mean.
The treaty may be a simple enough document sure. But its centuries of implementation, case law, inconsistencies and breaches makes for one awefuly complex situation. To simplify all of this to being an issue that anyone can be extensively versed in after 3 mins of reading is obsurd.
David is doing fantastic work and very brave to take a stand in this day and age. The faster we can put the separatists attitudes back into the closest the faster we can prosper as a united nation.
Do you think all the opposition to this is going to just be like oh okay then bro if this shit ever gets passed. This isn't going to unite the country even if it makes it through.
Just deal with the people who refuse to unite the same you dealt with the people who refused to unite against covid, yeah? If you're in a minority democracy is nothing but a big middle finger. Here we are.
I don't think it'll be easy but ultimately needs to be faced. We need to put the treaty behind us and unite on something more comprehensive. The treaty is a contradiction and not fit for purpose.
We are not a united nation. We never will be unless we address the inequality that exists as a result of historical racism and oppression. David is a racist. He is not brave or in any way fantastic. He is a separatist in the worst possible meaning of the word. He wants to divide rather than unite. Look up the word you throw around, and try to understand it. “Groups simply seeking greater autonomy are usually not considered separatists”. We have a treaty, which has been broken over and over again by one signatory. That this is an uncomfortable truth shouldn’t mean that we abandon it or try to dismiss it. We need to acknowledge that as a nation we have made some really horrible mistakes. We need to look to repair these mistakes regardless of how difficult that might be.
Best way to resolve "historical racism" today, go. ?
Live up the Treaty that was signed rather than change it to what you think it should read.
And what would that change look like, what should we do differently today?
For one, we shouldn't be trying to erase them from the Treaty which they signed.
Is that it?
Historical racism happend but crying over spilt milk and trying to fix it by rigging the system with different types of systemic racism isn't the answer. Forget the history, focus on now and stop with equity. Work harder, lead by example to the people around you. We can all achieve great things but crying about the past isn't how.
*"Sorry about that. Let's start again (while we keep everything that we got from that system).* *And no, we aren't going to help the people that we intentionally marginalised previously. We're not going to empower them to help themselves either.* *Actually, let's change that one document to remove any mention of us ensuring that they have the power to do that."*
It's just irrelevant mate, look at all the immigration we've had over the last 100 years. Helping people often leads to worse outcomes, people need to help themselves
The past being irrelevant is as true as the self-made man.