|
|
|
Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.
KiwiNZ: So are opponents of targeted assistance saying we should pay everyone the same amount? Pay everyone a benefit irrespective of their fiscal resources? If so, stop and think of Europe.
Kyanar:KiwiNZ: So are opponents of targeted assistance saying we should pay everyone the same amount? Pay everyone a benefit irrespective of their fiscal resources? If so, stop and think of Europe.
Now who's being deliberately disingenuous?
Noone opposes targeted assistance. What people oppose is targeted assistance where one of the criteria is skin colour or religion.
This might make me unpopular, but frankly I'm offended that I'm taxed a fortune and part of my tax money is used to fund scholarships for Maori students. I am happy for part of my taxes to be used to fund scholarships; but I believe it should be on merit, not on skin colour. If a Maori student happens to be the candidate with the most merit, then I both applaud them and congratulate them on being one of the best of the best.
Same reason I oppose Maori seats on councils and in parliament. There are enough Maori people in NZ that if they were to choose to get up and vote (or if a Maori candidate campaigned on working to represent all New Zealanders instead of just a select few), there would be perfectly adequate Maori representation in government without this racist practice.
Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.
KiwiNZ:
Target assistance will by it's nature target a group and exclude others, why is this logic so hard to fathom?
I believe it is actually jealousy, that someone is getting something that one cannot have.
I have experienced similar in a small way when I have been abused for parking in a disabled car park and getting into my wheelchair.

qwerty7: This discussion is heading toward another question.
Are race based scholarships actually effective at raising the socio economic levels of the target group?
My thinking is aligned with others in this thread. Race based scholarships are normally obtained by middle class peoples in the first place. The group who are at the low end of socio economic levels among the target group won't be going to University anyway. So not only do they enhance segregation they are also not effective at increasing the socio economic levels of the target group.
Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.
NZtechfreak: A few things worth mentioning:
To rossmnz: please don't bring blood quantum into this discussion, it's rubbish. I'm 'only' an eighth Maori, but I clearly identify as Maori, I'm not any less Maori than someone who is 50% Maori.

rossmnz:NZtechfreak: A few things worth mentioning:
To rossmnz: please don't bring blood quantum into this discussion, it's rubbish. I'm 'only' an eighth Maori, but I clearly identify as Maori, I'm not any less Maori than someone who is 50% Maori.
Fair is fair.
Ok let me amend that to "who clearly dont identify with Maori or identify themselves as such".
Happy?
KiwiNZ: So are opponents of targeted assistance saying we should pay everyone the same amount? Pay everyone a benefit irrespective of their fiscal resources? If so, stop and think of Europe.
JimmyH:KiwiNZ: So are opponents of targeted assistance saying we should pay everyone the same amount? Pay everyone a benefit irrespective of their fiscal resources? If so, stop and think of Europe.
No.
I and many others have no problem with targeted assistance. By all means offer income tested allowances, and scholarships based on ability and circumstances. I have no problem with that. My problem is when race or gender are used as the targeting criteria. Doubly so when taxpayers funds are involved.
|
|
|