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 | ... | 22
1671 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 640

Subscriber

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

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".

 

 

 

 


11010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3453

Trusted
Subscriber

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

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?






 
 
 
 


Try Wrike: fast, easy, and efficient project collaboration software
2502 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 928

Subscriber

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

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

957 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 363


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

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.

 

 


11888 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5515

Trusted

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

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.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

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

 

 


957 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 363


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

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?


1671 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 640

Subscriber

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

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.

 

 


2501 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 900

Subscriber

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

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.





6809 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3188

Subscriber

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

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
 


957 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 363


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

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.


6809 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3188

Subscriber

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

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
 


6809 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3188

Subscriber

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

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
 


527 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 449


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

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.


11010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3453

Trusted
Subscriber

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

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...






1671 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 640

Subscriber

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

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 | ... | 22
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 »

Amazon launches the International Shopping Experience in the Amazon Shopping App
Posted 19-Apr-2018 08:38


Spark New Zealand and TVNZ to bring coverage of Rugby World Cup 2019
Posted 16-Apr-2018 06:55


How Google can seize Microsoft Office crown
Posted 14-Apr-2018 11:08


How back office transformation drives IRD efficiency
Posted 12-Apr-2018 21:15


iPod laws in a smartphone world: will we ever get copyright right?
Posted 12-Apr-2018 21:13


Lightbox service using big data and analytics to learn more about customers
Posted 9-Apr-2018 12:11


111 mobile caller location extended to iOS
Posted 6-Apr-2018 13:50


Huawei announces the HUAWEI P20 series
Posted 29-Mar-2018 11:41


Symantec Internet Security Threat Report shows increased endpoint technology risks
Posted 26-Mar-2018 18:29


Spark switches on long-range IoT network across New Zealand
Posted 26-Mar-2018 18:22


Stuff Pix enters streaming video market
Posted 21-Mar-2018 09:18


Windows no longer Microsoft’s main focus
Posted 13-Mar-2018 07:47


Why phone makers are obsessed with cameras
Posted 11-Mar-2018 12:25


New Zealand Adopts International Open Data Charter
Posted 3-Mar-2018 12:48


Shipments tumble as NZ phone upgrades slow
Posted 2-Mar-2018 11:48



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.