Maori Seats

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

Forums › Politics › Maori Seats

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 22

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1823946 17-Jul-2017 17:35

Batman:

Lias:

MikeB4:

Lias:

Maori parliamentary seats are one of the most visible symptoms of apartheid in NZ, and should have gone decades ago. If the shoe was on the other foot and there were European or Asian only seats in parliament, everyone and his dog would be decrying it.

there is no apartheid in NZ and that is only counter productive inflammatory language.

That's your opinion Mike, it's decidedly not mine, nor is it backed up by fact.

A couple of the dictionary definitions of apartheid:

a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race
any system or practice that separates people according to color,ethnicity, caste, etc.

Any system that separates or segregates Maori from other New Zealand's is by definition, a form of apartheid. Maori seats fit that definition.

There needs to be discrimination against. Who is discriminated against, and examples of such policy and system please?

You could well be right. But I can't recall any examples of such discrimination. Do you mean when Maori were not allowed to speak Maori in public places? Ah yes I recall now. That could be apartheid, if say they were not allowed to speak Maori in schools leading to impaired education because they could not understand English very well.

Within the definition given, there is no need to prove discrimination. It merely states at (2) "any system or practice that separates people according to colour, ethnicity, caste etc".

This also means that India, unofficially at least, is an apartheid country.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1823948 17-Jul-2017 17:37

Maori are not separated because of the seats and neither are any other race in NZ. All have electoral representation.

Jase2985

13459 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1823958 17-Jul-2017 17:55

MikeB4:

Maori are not separated because of the seats and neither are any other race in NZ. All have electoral representation.

but why do they need specific representation? do the other MP's not represent them?

why not have other demographic with specific representation?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1823963 17-Jul-2017 18:05

Jase2985:

MikeB4:

Maori are not separated because of the seats and neither are any other race in NZ. All have electoral representation.

but why do they need specific representation? do the other MP's not represent them?

why not have other demographic with specific representation?

As I said earlier I believe the need for these seats is going. But originally the Tangata Whenua was disenfranchised. The need for the seats moved beyond the original issues The Maori faced with treaty bring ignored, land taken from them in the early twentieth century, near extinction etc etc.

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1823996 17-Jul-2017 18:54

Provided the average number of voters per seat is the same regardless of the type of seat, does it really matter that there are race-based seats? Each person's vote is worth the same representation in Parliament.

On the other hand, I'm against any form of race based discrimination. I'd include the proposed allocation of water-derived tax to any racial group in that.

As both NZ First and the Hobson's Pledge group are saying, it's time to leave the past behind and treat all NZers equally

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824056 17-Jul-2017 20:51

Geektastic:

Batman:

Lias:

MikeB4:

Lias:

Maori parliamentary seats are one of the most visible symptoms of apartheid in NZ, and should have gone decades ago. If the shoe was on the other foot and there were European or Asian only seats in parliament, everyone and his dog would be decrying it.

there is no apartheid in NZ and that is only counter productive inflammatory language.

That's your opinion Mike, it's decidedly not mine, nor is it backed up by fact.

A couple of the dictionary definitions of apartheid:

a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race
any system or practice that separates people according to color,ethnicity, caste, etc.

Any system that separates or segregates Maori from other New Zealand's is by definition, a form of apartheid. Maori seats fit that definition.

Within the definition given, there is no need to prove discrimination. It merely states at (2) "any system or practice that separates people according to colour, ethnicity, caste etc".

This also means that India, unofficially at least, is an apartheid country.

I prefer to look at the whole picture.

Up until not so very long ago, everywhere was 'apartheid' - every single place on earth.

That did mean that some 'colour, ethnicity and caste' owned all the land, got all the education, and took all the money.

Now suddenly 'apartheid' is not allowed - so what happens then? Some 'colour, ethnicity and caste' have no land, no education, no money, no voice.

How perfect isn't it, for the other 'colour, ethnicity and castes'.

If you did that in a computer game, you get banned for life.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1824061 17-Jul-2017 21:08

Its time NZ fully grew up..imo. We have come a long way over the last decade.

Maori seats should go ASAP and we should begin the path to becoming a republic. At the same time it wouldn't hurt to reduce the number of parliamentary seats by 25%.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1824062 17-Jul-2017 21:13

What would be gained from becoming a republic? also with a growing population what would be gained by reducing the parliament by 30 odd seats? thirdly by what aspects has New Zealand not grown up?

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824066 17-Jul-2017 21:35

Pumpedd:

Its time NZ fully grew up..imo. We have come a long way over the last decade.

Maori seats should go ASAP and we should begin the path to becoming a republic. At the same time it wouldn't hurt to reduce the number of parliamentary seats by 25%.

Last decade? Not really.

Republic? We are too small.

I'd rather reduce the age of politicians by 25%. Get younger blood with fresh ideas, that don't hide behind the old guard until its their turn.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1824238 18-Jul-2017 10:39

Geektastic:

Wiggum:

Lias:

That's your opinion Mike, it's decidedly not mine, nor is it backed up by fact.

A couple of the dictionary definitions of apartheid:

a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race
any system or practice that separates people according to color,ethnicity, caste, etc.

Any system that separates or segregates Maori from other New Zealand's is by definition, a form of apartheid. Maori seats fit that definition.

By that definition South Africa still has "apartheid".

Every Saffer I know will tell you it does.

Which is my point.

South Africa still has apartheid where white people are discriminated against. NZ has a similar system in parliament (Maori seats separates people according to ethnicity).The point I think Lias was also trying to make. its not "apartheid" as we know it from the 70's/80's.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1824242 18-Jul-2017 10:40

Wiggum:

Geektastic:

Wiggum:

Lias:

That's your opinion Mike, it's decidedly not mine, nor is it backed up by fact.

A couple of the dictionary definitions of apartheid:

a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race
any system or practice that separates people according to color,ethnicity, caste, etc.

Any system that separates or segregates Maori from other New Zealand's is by definition, a form of apartheid. Maori seats fit that definition.

By that definition South Africa still has "apartheid".

Every Saffer I know will tell you it does.

Which is my point.

South Africa still has apartheid where white people are discriminated against. NZ has a similar system in parliament (Maori seats separates people according to ethnicity).The point I think Lias was also trying to make. its not "apartheid" as we know it from the 70's/80's.

How exactly are non Maori disadvantaged?

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824244 18-Jul-2017 10:44

MikeB4:

Wiggum:

Geektastic:

Wiggum:

Lias:

That's your opinion Mike, it's decidedly not mine, nor is it backed up by fact.

A couple of the dictionary definitions of apartheid:

a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race
any system or practice that separates people according to color,ethnicity, caste, etc.

Any system that separates or segregates Maori from other New Zealand's is by definition, a form of apartheid. Maori seats fit that definition.

By that definition South Africa still has "apartheid".

Every Saffer I know will tell you it does.

Which is my point.

South Africa still has apartheid where white people are discriminated against. NZ has a similar system in parliament (Maori seats separates people according to ethnicity).The point I think Lias was also trying to make. its not "apartheid" as we know it from the 70's/80's.

How exactly are non Maori disadvantaged?

Well, if it is necessary for one race to have special representation, why is not necessary for all the other ones?

Should we therefore have Chinese seats, Korean seats, American seats, British seats, French seats etc etc?

I don't really think it is necessary to prove specific disadvantage for us to know that it does not pass the sniff test.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1824246 18-Jul-2017 10:49

Maori are the indigenous persons of Aotearoa therefore have rights enshrined in our constitutional documents and treaty with the Crown. A Maori does not get an extra vote if they chose say Tamaki Makaurau they cannot also vote in say Maungakiekie so no one is disadvantaged.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1824247 18-Jul-2017 10:51

MikeB4:

What would be gained from becoming a republic?

What would be lost?

I can see many gains, A New Zealander as head of state, getting rid of the treaty, A New Zealand for all New Zealanders, most importantly INDEPENDENCE.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1824250 18-Jul-2017 10:54

MikeB4:

How exactly are non Maori disadvantaged?

Oh lets not do this again please. Its not actually about who is disadvantaged anyway, its about segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.

Pakhea are discriminated against in NZ. In parliament, in scholarships for kids, and even in the Maori All black team :-)

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 22