Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 15
278 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 53

Subscriber

  Reply # 1824272 18-Jul-2017 11:19
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4:

 

kryptonjohn:

 

I think you are overextending just a little bit there, Mike. There are a few tribal authorities that agree with you but I'd like to see your legislative basis, perhaps starting with the NZ Constitution Act 1986.

 

 

 

 

The Treaty ceded sovereignty to the Crown with guarantees to Maori. If the Treaty is dumped then the Sovereignty would no longer rest with the Crown and thus revert to the other party of the treaty being the United Tribes of Aotearoa.

 

Sir Geoffrey Palmer on the matter.... "Sir Geoffrey Palmer QC is a constitutional law expert, a former Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and AttorneyGeneral. He believes the Treaty of Waitangi is an important part of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements and that organised government in New Zealand stems from the Treaty" 

 

 

Not sure what that Palmer quote adds here.

 

If the treaty were cancelled then at best NZ would revert to the pre-treaty state - New Zealand a colony of the England, with the Maori a set of independent, not unified tribes - some battling the English, and some at peace. Many of them very concerned about the intentions of the French.

 

There was no "sovereignty of united tribes".

 

 

 

 


9239 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2700

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1824274 18-Jul-2017 11:20
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

Geektastic:

 

Rikkitic:

 

Every time this comes up, I wonder where the Maori voices are. Isn't this just a bunch of Pākehā once again pontificating on what is best for Maori?

 

 

Presumably what is best for all New Zealanders? Or do you mean we should have special race-based treatment?

 

 

I mean if you are going to talk about what is best for all New Zealanders, then shouldn't all New Zealanders be part of the conversation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see no restriction on that. You can't force people to join in, can you?






 
 
 
 


2460 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 903

Subscriber

  Reply # 1824277 18-Jul-2017 11:22
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

 

 

And Maori are not discriminated against? In jobs, in housing, in the justice system, in society at large? Just asking.

 

 

Are you suggesting being Maori is the only trait that leads to discrimination? I suspect there's a lot more to it than that, and that many different peoples are discriminated against, consciously or unconsciously, in a number of ways and areas. Is it right? No, it's not. But it's pretty hard to argue that race should play no part in things when something as fundamental as government allows for segregation of rights based on race. Is now the right time to change that? Maybe, maybe not. I personally think it is, but I also acknowledge I don't have full visibility of all the issues and reasons why these seats still exist - though I do know the official reason they were created no longer exists. I'd like to think we're at a place, or close to it, where race becomes irrelevant for judging people. Perhaps I'm just too idealistic.





Windows 7 x64 // i5-3570K // 16GB DDR3-1600 // GTX660Ti 2GB // Samsung 830 120GB SSD // OCZ Agility4 120GB SSD // Samsung U28D590D @ 3840x2160 & Asus PB278Q @ 2560x1440
Samsung Galaxy S5 SM-G900I w/Spark

351 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 170


  Reply # 1824278 18-Jul-2017 11:22
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

kryptonjohn:

 

MikeB4:

 

kryptonjohn:

 

I think you are overextending just a little bit there, Mike. There are a few tribal authorities that agree with you but I'd like to see your legislative basis, perhaps starting with the NZ Constitution Act 1986.

 

 

 

 

The Treaty ceded sovereignty to the Crown with guarantees to Maori. If the Treaty is dumped then the Sovereignty would no longer rest with the Crown and thus revert to the other party of the treaty being the United Tribes of Aotearoa.

 

Sir Geoffrey Palmer on the matter.... "Sir Geoffrey Palmer QC is a constitutional law expert, a former Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and AttorneyGeneral. He believes the Treaty of Waitangi is an important part of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements and that organised government in New Zealand stems from the Treaty" 

 

 

Not sure what that Palmer quote adds here.

 

If the treaty were cancelled then at best NZ would revert to the pre-treaty state - New Zealand a colony of the England, with the Maori a set of independent, not unified tribes - some battling the English, and some at peace. Many of them very concerned about the intentions of the French.

 

There was no "sovereignty of united tribes". 

 

 

New Zealand would not "revert" to anything. If we were to become a republic, then we would convert 'democratically' to whatever the majority of New Zealanders wanted.

 

 





If you don't read the news, you're uninformed. If you do read it, you're misinformed.

 

  - Denzel Washington


Departed
10245 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4390

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1824280 18-Jul-2017 11:26
Send private message quote this post

Wiggum:

 

kryptonjohn:

 

MikeB4:

 

kryptonjohn:

 

I think you are overextending just a little bit there, Mike. There are a few tribal authorities that agree with you but I'd like to see your legislative basis, perhaps starting with the NZ Constitution Act 1986.

 

 

 

 

The Treaty ceded sovereignty to the Crown with guarantees to Maori. If the Treaty is dumped then the Sovereignty would no longer rest with the Crown and thus revert to the other party of the treaty being the United Tribes of Aotearoa.

 

Sir Geoffrey Palmer on the matter.... "Sir Geoffrey Palmer QC is a constitutional law expert, a former Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and AttorneyGeneral. He believes the Treaty of Waitangi is an important part of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements and that organised government in New Zealand stems from the Treaty" 

 

 

Not sure what that Palmer quote adds here.

 

If the treaty were cancelled then at best NZ would revert to the pre-treaty state - New Zealand a colony of the England, with the Maori a set of independent, not unified tribes - some battling the English, and some at peace. Many of them very concerned about the intentions of the French.

 

There was no "sovereignty of united tribes". 

 

 

New Zealand would not "revert" to anything. If we were to become a republic, then we would convert 'democratically' to whatever the majority of New Zealanders wanted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

With that I am disengaging.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


351 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 170


  Reply # 1824281 18-Jul-2017 11:27
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4:

 

Wiggum:

 

kryptonjohn:

 

MikeB4:

 

kryptonjohn:

 

I think you are overextending just a little bit there, Mike. There are a few tribal authorities that agree with you but I'd like to see your legislative basis, perhaps starting with the NZ Constitution Act 1986.

 

 

 

 

The Treaty ceded sovereignty to the Crown with guarantees to Maori. If the Treaty is dumped then the Sovereignty would no longer rest with the Crown and thus revert to the other party of the treaty being the United Tribes of Aotearoa.

 

Sir Geoffrey Palmer on the matter.... "Sir Geoffrey Palmer QC is a constitutional law expert, a former Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and AttorneyGeneral. He believes the Treaty of Waitangi is an important part of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements and that organised government in New Zealand stems from the Treaty" 

 

 

Not sure what that Palmer quote adds here.

 

If the treaty were cancelled then at best NZ would revert to the pre-treaty state - New Zealand a colony of the England, with the Maori a set of independent, not unified tribes - some battling the English, and some at peace. Many of them very concerned about the intentions of the French.

 

There was no "sovereignty of united tribes". 

 

 

New Zealand would not "revert" to anything. If we were to become a republic, then we would convert 'democratically' to whatever the majority of New Zealanders wanted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

With that I am disengaging.

 

 

Apologies, maybe my post came across as a little too democratic?





If you don't read the news, you're uninformed. If you do read it, you're misinformed.

 

  - Denzel Washington


278 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 53

Subscriber

  Reply # 1824282 18-Jul-2017 11:27
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Pretty much. I expect that the TOW would be included in a republic's constitution much as it is now to try and keep everyone happy: little or no constitutional power.

 

Remember that no TOW Tribunal decisions are binding on the government, and the extent of force the TOW holds in legislation is that its principles be "recognised". Which is waffle.

 

 


1632 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 494

Subscriber

  Reply # 1824283 18-Jul-2017 11:29
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

Actually Maori do get extra political power via the Maori seats. How? Because someone who is Maori can swap between the general electoral roll and the Maori roll. This means that if the general electorate where a Maori person lives is a safe seat for either national or labour. And the Maori electorate where they live is a marginal seat. They can change to the Maori roll where there vote has more influence. Or vice versa if they live in a safe Maori roll electorate but a marginal general roll electorate.

Also the real reason the Maori seats were introduced was to oppress Maori. At the time there were far more Maori than Europeans in NZ. So by forcing Maori to go on a Maori roll where they could only vote for 4 (at the time) seats. Was a way of granting Maori the right to vote, but without giving them any real political power.

Today there have been plenty of Maori MPs elected via the general seats. So claiming that the Maori seats are somehow necessary implies that Maori are somehow inferior, and cannot be elected via the general seats. There have already be Samoan and Asian MPs elected without special seats. So special seats for one racial group are definitely not needed today.

It really gets to me how whenever a problem gets raised to do with a certain ethnic group (usually a health care related problem) the solution proposed is often something race based. So in effect the government keeps trying to use racism to solve race based problems. What's worse most such problems if you dig a bit deeper. Are not actually caused by anything race related.





4897 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2218

Subscriber

  Reply # 1824286 18-Jul-2017 11:33
Send private message quote this post

Wiggum:

 

Thats not the point. Discrimination is discrimination, and you seem to agree with it, when it suits.

 

 

It is the point, and I do agree with it when it suits. 

 

A painful example of discrimination was segregation in the American South. When that obscenity was finally legislated out of existence, the country was left with the consequences of it. Simply making it illegal did not get rid of it. Imagine being a young black kid trying to enter a formerly segregated white school. It might be allowed, but you sure wouldn't feel very comfortable.

 

To try to compensate for this ugly legacy, busing policies were introduced to aid integration and break down barriers. Kids from one formerly segregated school district would be transported to another each day. In this way racial mixing was stimulated and the kids had a chance to get used to each other. It also forced local authorities to bring the educational standards of 'black' schools up to the level of the white ones.

 

Busing was a form of legal race-based discrimination intended to make up for past evils. It could be said that something of the same is currently the case in New Zealand.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


351 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 170


  Reply # 1824290 18-Jul-2017 11:40
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

Wiggum:

 

Thats not the point. Discrimination is discrimination, and you seem to agree with it, when it suits.

 

 

It is the point, and I do agree with it when it suits. 

 

 

 

 

There is no such thing as "fair" discrimination as far as I am concerned. Nobody is more equal than anybody else, even if some have been discriminated against in the past. Fixing the wrongs of the past, by more discrimination does nothing to fix anything.

 

If you agree to "fair" discrimination, then you no better than anybody else who discriminates.





If you don't read the news, you're uninformed. If you do read it, you're misinformed.

 

  - Denzel Washington


4897 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2218

Subscriber

  Reply # 1824293 18-Jul-2017 11:46
Send private message quote this post

Geektastic:

 

I see no restriction on that. You can't force people to join in, can you?

 

 

I just find it somewhat bemusing when white people start earnestly discussing what brown people should do.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


4897 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2218

Subscriber

  Reply # 1824294 18-Jul-2017 11:47
Send private message quote this post

Wiggum:

 

There is no such thing as "fair" discrimination as far as I am concerned. Nobody is more equal than anybody else, even if some have been discriminated against in the past. Fixing the wrongs of the past, by more discrimination does nothing to fix anything.

 

If you agree to "fair" discrimination, then you no better than anybody else who discriminates.

 

 

We disagree on this. What else is new?

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


265 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 213


  Reply # 1824519 18-Jul-2017 16:14
6 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

So - now that the inevitable ad hominem and hyperbole are out of everyone's systems...

 

Back to the issue of Maori Seats:

 

1) Established (as Mike correctly describes) to overcome the limitation at the time where only landowners were permitted to vote.

 

2) Became redundant (per the original intention) in 1867 when the right to vote was extended to all Maori men.  (Or arguably in 1893 when the right was also extended to women also)

 

3) Results now indicate that Maori have disproportionate representation in New Zealand's parliament.  (26/119 MPs identify as Maori - or 22%)

 

Compare with 14.6% of NZ's population identifying as Maori...

 

If you were to abolish the 7 Maori seats, and assume that NONE of the MPs sitting in Maori Seats were able to successfully win a seat on the general list - Maori representation in parliament would still be 17% - comprising Maori MP's already elected on the general role.

 

I think it's reasonable to have a referendum on the issue.


9239 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2700

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1824535 18-Jul-2017 16:19
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

Geektastic:

 

I see no restriction on that. You can't force people to join in, can you?

 

 

I just find it somewhat bemusing when white people start earnestly discussing what brown people should do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would probably be better if "people" were discussing what "people" should do...






278 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 53

Subscriber

  Reply # 1824539 18-Jul-2017 16:22
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

Geektastic:

 

I see no restriction on that. You can't force people to join in, can you?

 

 

I just find it somewhat bemusing when white people start earnestly discussing what brown people should do.

 

 

 

No more bemusing than brown people telling white people what to do.

 

But where above in this discussion are white people telling brown people what to do? "You can't force people to join in, can you" suggests the opposite.

 

 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 15
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Nothing nebulous about Microsoft’s cloud-transition
Posted 21-Jul-2017 15:34


We’re spending more on tech, but not as much as Australians
Posted 21-Jul-2017 11:43


Endace announces EndaceFabric for network-wide packet recording
Posted 20-Jul-2017 20:49


Acorn 6: MacOS image editing for the rest of us
Posted 20-Jul-2017 17:04


HTC faces backlash over keyboard pop-up ads
Posted 19-Jul-2017 15:53


BNZ adds Visa credit cards to Android Pay wallet
Posted 18-Jul-2017 19:44


Still living in a Notification hell – Om Malik
Posted 18-Jul-2017 13:00


Duet Display uses iPad to extend Mac, PC
Posted 18-Jul-2017 10:58


PC sales could be worse
Posted 17-Jul-2017 07:34


Crypto-currencies, tulips, market bubbles
Posted 17-Jul-2017 06:38


NZ Tech Podcast: Big batteries, solar cars, cold war, IoT
Posted 16-Jul-2017 16:53


Vodafone Australia mulls Wisp alliance, NZ implications
Posted 13-Jul-2017 16:49


Rural health professionals see fibre pay-off
Posted 13-Jul-2017 11:52


Vodafone announces expansion of $5 Daily Roaming
Posted 13-Jul-2017 10:20


Intel unveils powerful Intel Xeon Scalable processors
Posted 12-Jul-2017 20:41



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.