Lauren Southern to speak in NZ

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Lauren Southern to speak in NZ

1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | ... | 26

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2070854 9-Aug-2018 17:20

MikeAqua:

What HP are calling for may very well be breach of the ToW, and therefore a breach of contract - I don't know.

I think it's reasonably safe to assume that it's in breach of the modern interpretation of the ToW.

However, I believe that HP are actually calling for the original text of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to be upheld.

Caveat: This is notwithstanding that the second article guarantees property rights to the Chiefs, and that these rights have, at various points in history, not been upheld. And that these breaches are rightly being recognised and redressed... But none of that (to my knowledge) is opposed by HP

The key premise of HP is that they are seeking the third article to also be upheld.

Article 3 reads as follows:

Hei wakaritenga mai hoki mo te wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te Kuini

Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata Maori katoa o Nu Turani

Ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rita tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani

Which was translated from this English draft:

In return for the cession of their Sovereignty to the Queen

the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England,

and the rights and privileges of British Subjects shall be granted to them.

The treaty calls for all New Zealanders, both the settlers and Maori, to be granted equal rights and protections.

In fact, translations of Te Tititi into English by Maori in the early 1900's describe it as follows:

This too is an arrangement in return for the assent of Governorship of the Queen.

The Queen of England will protect all the native men of New Zealand

She yields to them all the rights, one and the same as her doings to the men of England

This, of course, is the reason for HP choosing their name - Governor Hobson's proclamation at the time of signing that, "We are now one people."

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2070874 9-Aug-2018 18:30

6FIEND:

She yields to them all the rights, one and the same as her doings to the men of England

This, of course, is the reason for HP choosing their name - Governor Hobson's proclamation at the time of signing that, "We are now one people."

You don't think that Hobson tricked them? I sure do.

The right to vote wasn't universal, as an individual you needed to own property, the maori concept of property was that it was collectively owned, so you didn't get to vote. Effectively Maori had no political rights.

If you wanted to take a "literalist" approach to the treaty and the "we are now one people" pledge - it was utter bullsh!t, so is using something that was bullsh!t at the time , 180 years later to strongly argue for a political ideology ok or not?

The time will come, but it's probably not yet - and Brash (with his history of divisive political garbage - whether by intent or not) should not be the messenger.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2070878 9-Aug-2018 18:44

In case anybody wants to watch, the debate that Mr Brash is involved in is just starting.

Here's a link to the live stream:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/08/livestream-don-brash-in-free-speech-debate-at-auckland-university.html

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2070897 9-Aug-2018 20:02

Personally I think the Massey situation is way overheated. I don't recall a massive outcry about free speech when Hone Harawira was 'banned' from speaking at Auckland Uni Law School after online threats related to the event:

Stuff: Law student Charlotte Summers said the Faculty of Law cancelled the lecture on the basis of "there may be a breach of the peace". She said the Young Nationals organisation was behind the protest. "How is it fair that the Young Nats decide to be disruptive, threaten to be disruptive, and then an entire event is cancelled because of their choices and what they threaten to do?"

Young Nats club denied any involvement in threats. The whole foreshore thing was earlier legislated away by Clark's Labour govt anyway..

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#2071069 10-Aug-2018 09:58

Fred99:

You don't think that Hobson tricked them? I sure do.

The right to vote wasn't universal, as an individual you needed to own property, the maori concept of property was that it was collectively owned, so you didn't get to vote. Effectively Maori had no political rights.

A little context ...

Under the contemporary laws in England (enacted in the 1830's) you had to be an English man and own land worth more than 10 pounds to be allowed to vote. That improved in the 1860's when voting right were extended to 40% of English males. Sorry, I'm scratchy about the exact dates - studied this issue in 4th form history, which was years ago.

It was equally shabby treatment of most people under British Rule - in terms of the law. I do agree that because of the collective ownership issues you describe, Maori (and most indigenous people) fared even worse than British colonists and locally born Europeans. Was this by accident or design?

I think it's difficult to view the past through today's values because you do so without the 'vibe' of the times.

150 years from now, society will probably look back on the value sets we think are superior now and smugly tut away at how awful we were.

Mike

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#2071071 10-Aug-2018 10:01

mm1352000:

In case anybody wants to watch, the debate that Mr Brash is involved in is just starting.

Here's a link to the live stream:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/08/livestream-don-brash-in-free-speech-debate-at-auckland-university.html

Brash quipped on TV today that if he was assassinated, he would be NZ's first victim of a political assassination.

Mike

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2071185 10-Aug-2018 11:32

MikeAqua:

Fred99:

You don't think that Hobson tricked them? I sure do.

The right to vote wasn't universal, as an individual you needed to own property, the maori concept of property was that it was collectively owned, so you didn't get to vote. Effectively Maori had no political rights.

A little context ...

Under the contemporary laws in England (enacted in the 1830's) you had to be an English man and own land worth more than 10 pounds to be allowed to vote. That improved in the 1860's when voting right were extended to 40% of English males. Sorry, I'm scratchy about the exact dates - studied this issue in 4th form history, which was years ago.

It was equally shabby treatment of most people under British Rule - in terms of the law. I do agree that because of the collective ownership issues you describe, Maori (and most indigenous people) fared even worse than British colonists and locally born Europeans. Was this by accident or design?

I think it's difficult to view the past through today's values because you do so without the 'vibe' of the times.

150 years from now, society will probably look back on the value sets we think are superior now and smugly tut away at how awful we were.

Yes sure and I agree. As to whether it was "accident or design" - we'll never know.

Did you study history in the 4th form at school? IIRC history wasn't a separate subject option in the 4th form when I was at school, it was "social studies" and compulsory, in the 5th form it split into history and geography for "school certificate". I took the latter, then decided to take history in the 6th form. In those days it was exceedingly boringly presented by the teacher I had, it seemed to consist of listening to a monotone reciting dates of important events (entirely European history from the small amount I recall) with no context of what the hell those events really were - and being able to match those dates with events in a test - which I'd fail miserably of course because I'd been perfectly asleep in class - at least not disruptive unless I'd snored. A terrible, bored, unenthusiastic teacher - who should have been fired or retired long before. Had I been awake and NZ history been covered (probably not), then I guess I'd have learned gems about NZ history, perhaps not arguing for but suggesting the possibility by dog whistles that because of the accepted "fact" of the time that Maori had invaded and eaten the original settlers - then colonisation and suppression of Maori culture was ok. I'd have probably also learned that Maori should be grateful for being assimilated into superior "english" (aka "white") culture - ignoring the "vibe of the times" as you correctly put it, that in this "English Culture", leaders suppressed individual rights for almost all, and behaved in an extremely barbaric manner as a matter of course.

Brash may have some valid points. I find his smug air of superiority repulsive, and presentation of his interpretation of history disingenuous and divisive. It's no surprise that he's the target of loud protest.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#2071193 10-Aug-2018 11:50

Fred99:

Yes sure and I agree. As to whether it was "accident or design" - we'll never know.

Did you study history in the 4th form at school? IIRC history wasn't a separate subject option in the 4th form when I was at school, it was "social studies" and compulsory, in the 5th form it split into history and geography for "school certificate". I took the latter, then decided to take history in the 6th form. In those days it was exceedingly boringly presented by the teacher I had, it seemed to consist of listening to a monotone reciting dates of important events (entirely European history from the small amount I recall) with no context of what the hell those events really were - and being able to match those dates with events in a test - which I'd fail miserably of course because I'd been perfectly asleep in class - at least not disruptive unless I'd snored. A terrible, bored, unenthusiastic teacher - who should have been fired or retired long before. Had I been awake and NZ history been covered (probably not), then I guess I'd have learned gems about NZ history, perhaps not arguing for but suggesting the possibility by dog whistles that because of the accepted "fact" of the time that Maori had invaded and eaten the original settlers - then colonisation and suppression of Maori culture was ok. I'd have probably also learned that Maori should be grateful for being assimilated into superior "english" (aka "white") culture - ignoring the "vibe of the times" as you correctly put it, that in this "English Culture", leaders suppressed individual rights for almost all, and behaved in an extremely barbaric manner as a matter of course.

Brash may have some valid points. I find his smug air of superiority repulsive, and presentation of his interpretation of history disingenuous and divisive. It's no surprise that he's the target of loud protest.

In 4th form we had half the year geography and half the year history - different teachers. In history the focus was very much NZ history. Topics like NZ Wars; Cultural cooperation, assimilation or collision between Maori and Europeans; And that treaty - including an essay assignment on what was meant by the rights of British subjects.

The history teacher was a very good teacher, but a bit of a hard-ass who had unreasonably high expectations of 14/15 year olds.

Mike

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2071252 10-Aug-2018 12:55

MikeAqua:

In 4th form we had half the year geography and half the year history - different teachers. In history the focus was very much NZ history. Topics like NZ Wars; Cultural cooperation, assimilation or collision between Maori and Europeans; And that treaty - including an essay assignment on what was meant by the rights of British subjects.

The history teacher was a very good teacher, but a bit of a hard-ass who had unreasonably high expectations of 14/15 year olds.

What year was that? I'm guessing I may be a few years older and the curriculum may have changed. I would have been in the 4th form in 1972.

From what I remember of "social studies", there was no mention of TOW at all, possibly some NZ history but not much, a little bit of politics/economics about NZ electoral system, about communism, capitalism and the hazards of extremes, the rest was mainly geography.

To put some other context to that time, the Vietnam war protest movement was a thing, the school military "cadet" scheme had been abandoned. Folks from the anti Vietnam war movement "PYM" (Progressive Youth Movement) would hang around the school gates handing out anti-war leaflets. Many were actually hardline communists. There was also "The Little Red Schoolbook", possession of which on the school grounds would result in worse than just a flogging. That's an example of conservative hysteria and attempts to shut down something perceived to be a massive threat to social mores and attacking the messengers - and that backfiring. It motivated basically every kid to urgently get a copy. The book was actually very tame - the plain language sex education chapter was of course the thing that had our unappointed moral guardians livid. IIRC it also had some anatomically correct diagrams - or should I say "complete". I think the concern was that this might be far to much for adolescents to cope with and incite the kind of behaviour they wanted to suppress, they were presumably just as naive as many of the generation of parents of teenagers are now and has been going on for eternity - "no they won't do that - we brought them up too well".

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2072118 12-Aug-2018 15:53

At the risk of re-igniting the free speech debate, I think everyone interested in this issue should listen to this BBC podcast. The Sandy Hook atrocity (mass shooting of small schoolchildren for anyone who doesn’t know) did happen. There is no question about this. It is well-documented and was widely reported. Many families were left with the unbearable grief of losing their young children in a senseless act of cold-blooded madness.

Yet there are actually people who refuse to believe this happened and see it instead as some kind of government conspiracy. It is hard to comprehend how anyone could be this stupid or cruel, but a significant number of presumably competent adults are somehow convinced it is all a big, fat hoax. Until now they have been fed by appalling people like Alex Jones, who has finally been banned from most social networking sites.

Yes, banned, and it should have happened much sooner. Free speech has been seized upon by both right wingers and right wing extremists as some kind of Big Brother litmus test. If ugly people with wormy minds cannot make any kind of outrageous public declaration they like, everyone is suddenly in mortal danger of being crushed by an oppressive intolerant system that is out to destroy democracy and freedom forever. Think of Star Wars. That is about as mature and makes about as much sense.

The difference is that Star Wars is entertainment, the evil empire against the courageous freedom fighters. This is something much worse. It is fake news on steroids, lies elevated to cult status. People like Jones (and Southern, and Molyneux) are generally clever enough not to publicly say anything that breaks laws. This is not hard to do, because laws are by nature static and inflexible and slow to change. Instead of breaking the letter of the law, such people smash the spirit of it by telling lies and misinterpreting facts to inflame passions and rouse emotions. Susceptible listeners allow themselves to be led by this, the same way tele-congregations jump to their feet and shout hallelujah when the charismatic preacher praises the lord and begs for money.

For some unfathomable reason, people do respond to this kind of thing. It is what gets Trump elected and inspires fascist rallies. It is what creates lynch mobs. Words are not harmless, neutral, things that passively drift around like fluffy clouds. They can be weaponised. This is why they must be guarded against.

Free speechers see it as an all or nothing issue. It is not. Drawing a line does not kill democracy. There is no cabal of liberal conspirators out to control free thought or your right to choose. If you believe that, you probably believe that an evil lunatic did not mow down 20 little kids at an elementary school, along with some of their teachers. If you really think this is a hoax, or even could be, you should never be allowed to listen to anything more challenging than Sesame Street ever again. The real danger to a free society comes not from those who want to contain what may be said, but from those prepared to believe anything.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2072242 12-Aug-2018 18:59

The likes of Alex Jones would never see the light of day without social media.

I believe that in decades to come social media will be viewed as one of the worst inventions of mankind, right up there with nuclear and chemical weapons.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2072246 12-Aug-2018 19:09

SJB:

The likes of Alex Jones would never see the light of day without social media.

I believe that in decades to come social media will be viewed as one of the worst inventions of mankind, right up there with nuclear and chemical weapons.

Agreed. It's right up there with reality TV...

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2072278 12-Aug-2018 22:57

Rikkitic: Free speechers see it as an all or nothing issue.

What evidence do you have for this statement?

I may be mistaken, but to the best of my recollection, the only person that might have said that in this thread and in all the media commentary I've seen recently is Lias.

Even Don Brash categorically stated in the Auckland University debate (8 m 10s in this video):

I'm not suggesting, and no-one suggests, that free speech should be without limits.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2072498 13-Aug-2018 09:49

There was never any official attempt to gag what they say, and so long as they kept within "hate speech" laws etc, then they could have stood on a street corner in NZ and said anything they like.

China etc does authoritarian free-speech gagging, they grab people with views they don't like and lock them up, seize all documents etc, block web access, forbid reporting the matter by state-controlled news, ban and police discussion about it on social media etc. Suggestions by some that this was what NZ was at risk of becoming are nuts, as are arguments based around a perception that a couple of fascists' "rights" to free speech should include providing them with a venue, security etc.

The lesson in it for venue owners - do some research first and make a decision - don't accept a booking then cancel it later when you find that you've inadvertently facilitated fascists or anybody else with repugnant views. If the speakers had been giving a lecture urging NZ to abandon laws protecting children from sexual abuse, how much "pro free-speech" argument from either the right or the hand-wringing left would have been there to support them? Fundamentally, what's the difference?

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#2072535 13-Aug-2018 10:33

Fred99:

MikeAqua:

In 4th form we had half the year geography and half the year history - different teachers. In history the focus was very much NZ history. Topics like NZ Wars; Cultural cooperation, assimilation or collision between Maori and Europeans; And that treaty - including an essay assignment on what was meant by the rights of British subjects.

The history teacher was a very good teacher, but a bit of a hard-ass who had unreasonably high expectations of 14/15 year olds.

What year was that? I'm guessing I may be a few years older and the curriculum may have changed. I would have been in the 4th form in 1972.

In my case 4th form was 1989. The Berlin Wall came down that year.

Mike

1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | ... | 26