Media watch – Tuesday

11 July 2017

MediaWatch

Media Watch is a focus on New Zealand media, blogs and social media. You can post any items of interested related to media.

A primary aim here is to hold media to account in the political arena. A credible and questioning media is an essential part of a healthy democracy.

A general guideline – post opinion on or excerpts from and links to blog posts or comments of interest, whether they are praise, criticism, pointing out issues or sharing useful information.

61 Comments

  1. Mefrostate

     /  July 11, 2017

    Excellent piece by Sir Geoffrey Palmer on voter apathy: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/07/09/37784/democracy-is-in-decline-so-what-can-we-do

    • Gezza

       /  July 11, 2017

      Too apathetic to read it.

      • Mefrostate

         /  July 11, 2017

        Apathetic voter or a pathetic voter Gezza?

        • Gezza

           /  July 11, 2017

          Dedicated voter, & a perennial joker & hard case. I had a read, of course. He can be boring at times but that’s bang on. Very good. Gotta go for now Mefro, have to drive Ma out to Lower Hutt to let some lawyers take money off her for the same advice I’m givng her for free.

    • Hmmm – installing the Treaty in a constitution at all levels of governance, (instead of a handful of written laws and statutes that are debatable) is a primary aim of Sir Geoff and friends.

      Without a written constitution Standing Order 262 requires a 75 per cent supermajority to entrench the Maori seats. In political reality, entrenchment appears unlikely.

      Found this if anyone can be bothered reading it. Jeremy Sparrow – dissertation

      “The Maori seats were introduced as a temporary expedient in 1867. Yet, they still exist today. The rationales relied upon to justify the existence of the seats are unconvincing and cannot withstand scrutiny. Simply put, the Maori seats are well past their expiry date.

      MMP has remedied the disparity of Maori parliamentary representation under FPP. However, by retaining separate seats, Maori are not provided with the effective representation that they would enjoy under a common roll. The size of the Maori electorates ensures they are unworkable and cumbersome to administer. Further, a common roll would ensure all electorate MPs are accountable to all Maori. The Maori Party‟s presence in Parliament would also be put directly under the spotlight. If the Maori Party is providing Maori with effective representation, it is likely the Party would be more successful under a common roll vying for the national party vote, in contrast to only ever winning a maximum of seven electorate seats.

      The seats as a symbol of indigeneity are not justifiable in New Zealand today. There is no duty on a government to grant superior political rights amounting to guaranteed representation to those who claim to be indigenous. Further, the symbolic significance of the seats is tarnished when one requires no proof to enrol. Moreover, the considerable intermarriage that has resulted in the diminution of Maori blood casts significant doubt on whether the seats are still appropriate in contemporary New Zealand.

      The Electoral Act 1993 does not refer to the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles. Furthermore, the moral arguments that the Treaty provides for separate representation are flawed. The Crown‟s duty of active protection under Article Two, the guarantee of tino rangatiratanga, the principle of partnership, and the electoral rights provided for in Article Three do not mandate separate Maori seats. Instead of a superior form of citizenship, the Treaty provides for unanimity and equality. Rather than being divisive, its real spirit is one of unity and harmony.

      The Maori seats do not breach the principle of democratic equality. Rather, they force us to question whether defining the electorate as Maori and non-Maori is a desirable practice in contemporary New Zealand. The seats are the symbolic pinnacle of our bicultural past when the multicultural reality of our state screams otherwise. Rather than the most powerful political and law-making institution in the country being divided at its core, this paper calls for New Zealand to truly become a united nation.

      Accordingly, as no justification remains, the Maori seats should be abolished. Furthermore, this paper has shown that the seats are a discriminatory privilege. It is also unjustifiable to maintain the seats as a safety valve for Maori when other sectors of society are clearly in greater need of a proportionate voice in Parliament. A common roll would also reduce the likelihood of a parliamentary overhang occurring.

      The proposed entrenchment of the seats can be opposed on two grounds. The seats present a politically contestable and complex issue, not a legitimate subject-matter worthy of constitutional entrenchment. Further, Standing Order 262 requires a 75 per cent supermajority to entrench the Maori seats. Thus, in political reality, entrenchment appears unlikely.

      Abolition, in a strictly legal sense, can be undertaken by a simple parliamentary majority. However, there is no current political appetite to abolish the seats. Instead, either retention or abolition should be legitimised by all New Zealanders at a binding referendum. By doing so, Parliament would ensure the electoral system as a whole is supported by the majority of electors. Depending on the outcome of the 2011 referendum, this paper recommends that the issue be decided at the 2014 or 2017 general election. Clearly, this recommendation is ambitious. But it is essential that this generation finds a way forward. And as Winston Churchill said, “let us go forward together.”

      In order to abolish the seats, an Act of Parliament is needed. Likewise, in order to initiate the binding referendum process, Parliament must pass legislation. Hence, in the final analysis, the future of the Maori seats depends on political whim. Thus, will the abolition contended for throughout this paper ever occur? One can only speculate. Politics, remember, always comes down to a numbers game in the end.

      It is the art of the possible.’

      http://www.otago.ac.nz/law/research/journals/otago036316.pdf

      • Gezza

         /  July 11, 2017

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  July 11, 2017

          Gezza’s stamp collection. Still wondering what a poll of self-identifying Maori-option voters can possibly do except support what they have already self-selected for?

          Think the stamp collection should be applied to his own advocacy.

          • Gezza

             /  July 11, 2017

            Yes I know you think that and as I know no argument would shift you from that view I’m not even going to waste time making one.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  July 11, 2017

            So basically you’ll vote for Winston so long as he decides not to abolish the Maori seats to be implemented by carrying out a pointless referendum confined to a franchise that has self-selected to support them?

          • Gezza

             /  July 11, 2017

            No, he’s not guranteed a vote at this stage, but it’ll most likely be one of those two Parties. I do not believe the interests of Maori are well enough served by the main parties and that they continue to need separate representation focussed primariky on Maori interests in sufficient numbers to be oart of a governing coalition that is obliged to take Maori issues into account in policy making. I believe the Maori Party needs to evolve a bit more yet, they may not be selecting the best representatives to be part of a coalition government but I hope that soon they will. Maori failings have to be acknowledged & accepted by Maori, but Maori successes have to be acknowledged by wveryone too, and they MUST be central to helping to design and implement solutions, and build on successes that have beeb schieved everywhere. I like what little I inow of whanau ora and the idea National has of targeting spending & measuring to achieve results. The serious issues facing Maori that are holding them back from full participation in the economy & their place in the nation require pakeha & maori to work together & are too vital to be left to the general electorate system.That’s my opinion.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 11, 2017

              Are there any serious issues facing some Maori that are not also facing some members of other races or cultures in NZ? If so, do they justify a completely separate electoral franchise?

            • Gezza

               /  July 11, 2017

              Yes.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 11, 2017

              Lost my internet and had to retype and missed out the vital two words ..

              If so, what and ..

            • Gezza

               /  July 11, 2017

              Fatherless kids, unemployment, lack of education, high incarceration rates, illiteracy, child abuse, lack of housing, gangs … just saying that’s Maori culture for you like some bigots do is bullshit. That’s not Maori culture. There’s absolutely no reason Maori culture can’t thrive in today’s NZ society – in many places it already is – AND fully participate in all areas of the economy, the professions, services, trades, business. But it requires commitment to do something to address all these issues. By both Maori & Pakeha. Properly. In partnership, with clear objectives, measurable processes, proper agreements or contracts, & provision of relevant services by the right people, including Maori.

              I’m sick of hearing from Maori-bashers & Pakeha-bashers. And wanking academics. Just get focussed, get honest, & get on with it!

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 11, 2017

              Dunno what you are smoking, G. All of those are faced by some members of other races and cultures in NZ. All of those are not faced by many (in fact most) Maori. All of them persisted despite more than a century of separate Maori franchise.

            • Gezza

               /  July 11, 2017

              Highest young Maori people suicide rate in the country up your way isn’t it? Unemployment. Illiteracy. All those thingsI listed come up all the time in the media. Somewhere here today you posted about not wanting to put sheep on your property because you’re worried about someone turning it into a home kill operation with no security. Who do you think would do that? You didn’t say.

              No end of people posting here from time to railing about these issues among Maori & saying effectively they just need to be like pakehas & it’ll all come right. We’ve got Maori gangs down here. What are you drinking?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 11, 2017

              Hot choc. You didn’t answer any of my points. To reiterate:

              1. None of these problems are exclusive to Maori.
              2. None of them affect all Maori or even the majority of Maori.
              3. A century of separate Maori franchise has failed to eliminate or even significantly improve them.

              And yet you think that maintaining a separate Maori franchise is neither useless nor misguided wrt addressing them.

              Like any other problem those most affected should have most representation when organising a response or solution. But that should be proportionate and not exclusive.

            • Gezza

               /  July 11, 2017

              “1. None of these problems are exclusive to Maori.”
              I didn’t say they were. We are constantly told they disproportionately affect Maori. Who are the other groups they intergenerationally affect to the same degree in the same proportions.

              “2. None of them affect all Maori or even the majority of Maori.”
              Absolutely, although there is a significant number of pakeha & maori who constantly claim that they do.

              “3. A century of separate Maori franchise has failed to eliminate or even significantly improve them.”
              Yep. Which shows how bloody faciile it has been to expect to achieve anything useful in the way of funding and initiatives to fix these problems by being buried in paternalistic pakeha parties not really interested in anything more than your vote & having no separate bargaining power in a coalition.

              “And yet you think that maintaining a separate Maori franchise is neither useless nor misguided wrt addressing them.”
              Yes if they get enough candiates of the right skill & cultural and educational qualifications to drive through beneficial changes as a bloc.

              “Like any other problem those most affected should have most representation when organising a response or solution. But that should be proportionate and not exclusive.”
              We disagree.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 11, 2017

              We certainly do disagree. I should have also said at least half a century of social work has also failed to solve these problems. Chances are that centralised solutions will never work for them.

            • Gezza

               /  July 11, 2017

              Absolutely agree half a century of social work has failed to solve these problems. It needs to be decentralised & devolved to the right combination of services & providers. It needs to be clear what objectives & outcomes are sought, how progress is to be tracked, quickly adjusted or stopped where its not working. Basically each operation needs to be project managed over a specified time frame.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 11, 2017

              Too late – time to hit the sack. Internet has been crap tonight. Down and up like a yo yo. Dunno what vodafone is up to. They’ve promised me VDSL and waiting for the new modem but I doubt it will help these kinds of problems. Think it’s all at the other end of the wire.

            • Gezza

               /  July 11, 2017

              Fibre’s no faster than my old copper connection, may even be slower. I can’t find out anywhere how much RAM this FiP’s got but I’m fed up with it crashing online news pages with videos before they even fully load. It seems worse than before. Slow as a wet weekend loading. Happens with both Chrome & Safari.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  July 12, 2017

              Fibre IS faster than your old copper, but the WIFI isn’t, so the WIFI is a bottleneck. My internet gets 15Mb/s faster when I plug in the ethernet cable. Though this could partly be that the WIFI router that came with the fibre installation is shit.
              Unfortunately you can’t hook an ipad up to the ethernet.

            • Gezza

               /  July 12, 2017

              Thanks AC. I think the problem main problem might just be insufficient onboard RAM with page loading online news items with graphics & various animated whatsits. Can’t find anywhere onboard that says how much RAM I’ve got in the iPad.

          • Gezza

             /  July 11, 2017

            And I should have typed that out on iNotepad & pasted it – it’s a damn sight easier to proof-read.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  July 11, 2017

      Interesting piece, but it doesn’t really offer any solutions.
      People are busy with their lives – hence voting in politicians to look after the country.
      The running of a country is incredibly complex, and while people may get their heads around certain specific issues, especially if they are passionate about them, they will (generally) not then reconcile their position with the consequences of change on other areas of the economy or policy mix. This is the whole “Law of unintended consequences” issue – which often even those in Parliament who should know such things can fall into.
      The best people can do in reality is to be given a broad but necessarily generalised statement of intent as to the intended direction and policy priorities a party has and vote in accordance with the whether a party’s values match their own.
      For example ACT is about aspiration and rewarding success, but to many lack empathy The Greens are about environmental sustainability but at the expense of economic reality. Labour are not quite sure what they are about these days which is why they are falling in the polls.
      NZ First is about Nationalism. National these days seem to be about stability and incremental advancement.

      To argue that the electorate should be fully informed and vote accordingly misses the reality that people have busy lives and simply cannot spend the time to fully resolve these things even if they had the desire.

      The way politics is reported has an effect on the electorate’s satisfaction with the system,. There is a lot more emotive reporting and cynicism in reporters that comes through. And where parties promote themselves as being one thing and then act contrary to that it also builds distrust.

      • Mefrostate

         /  July 11, 2017

        I think the piece offers plenty of solutions:

        Better civics education.

        Genuine opportunities for participation (town halls, citizen panels, more transparent select committee process).

        More reporting of parliamentary debates & political issues, lengthy interviews and long-form journalism.

        Reduced role of public relations.

        Tightening of political donation & election spending regulations.

        Something to combat professional lobby groups.

        Codified constitution.

        • PDB

           /  July 11, 2017

          All of which will have zero effect on voter apathy – one only has to look at local govt where apathy is far worse but the opportunity for input into the governance is so much higher with local boards, millions of committees etc.

          • Mefrostate

             /  July 11, 2017

            Interesting point. I also liked your point about emotive reporting, and your idea about mission/ideology statements.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  July 11, 2017

              Civics education will give some knowledge of the workings of government – but that is different to democratic participation.

              Opportunities for participation will be shunned – even the TPP couldn’t muster up any significant levels of voter attendance. And in general these things (citizen panels) attract a ‘certain type of person’…

              The lack of proper detailed reportage is a definite issue – once over lightly and no depth gives a very misleading picture but that is what we are foisted with. Once more the issue here is not democracy, but what are the causes of the decline in genuine investigative and authoritative journalism?

              All communication is PR – you cannot get around this. Reducing PR is reducing communication, which is a step backwards. Everyone wants their message put forward in the best way possible.

              Tightening donations and spending, once more curtails communication or forces Government funding of elections. This is a step backwards in my mind. As long as there is transparency in large donation sources I can’t see the issue.

              Lobby groups are also fine – Ministers get advice fro ma large number of sources, and once more everyone should have aright to put their case. As long as bribery and corruption are not involved and as long as access is equal for all parties, lobby groups can and do form an important part of the policy making process.

              A constitution is untenable at this stage of our history. It simply cannot happen – lets start with something simple like a flag and move up from there shall we?

            • Gezza

               /  July 11, 2017

              Why is a constitution untenable at this stage of our history and when will it be tenable?

            • High Flying Duck

               /  July 11, 2017

              A constitution is untenable because there is now too much fractiousness in the NZ society.
              It may never be possible with the way society is headed. People live in echo chambers of like minded opinions. Opposing views are seen as stupidity or signs of fascism.
              Trying to have civil discourse on any meaningful matter with someone who has actual views on a subject is extremely rare.
              The days of commonality are gone. In the ‘old’ days, while there were many differences of opinion at least everyone formed their opinions based on the same set of facts and there was more of a shared value system.
              These days people get information from wildly varying sources that reinforce their own beliefs and tend to avoid opposing views or devils advocacy of any type lest it burst their bubble.
              To find a way to create a document which can cast a framework around such disparity is nigh on impossible.
              And that is before Treaty issues, gender issues, immigration issues etc get added in.

              Speaking of untenable is Blazer away?

            • Mefrostate

               /  July 11, 2017

              HFD, thanks for all your comments in here, appreciate your thoughts.

              1. “Once more the issue here is not democracy, but what are the causes of the decline in genuine investigative and authoritative journalism?”

              Big time. I see the decline in the quality of journalism as a significant cause of the apathy. Reincarnating the fourth estate is a big challenge, but a crucial one in my opinion. We can further discuss the causes &/or possible solutions, if you like.

              2. “All communication is PR – you cannot get around this. Reducing PR is reducing communication, which is a step backwards. Everyone wants their message put forward in the best way possible.”

              Fair point, but I think we need to figure out how big-data and micro-targeting (of the likes of Cambridge Analytica) fit into our democracy.

              3. “Tightening donations and spending, once more curtails communication or forces Government funding of elections. This is a step backwards in my mind. As long as there is transparency in large donation sources I can’t see the issue. Lobby groups are also fine – Ministers get advice fro ma large number of sources, and once more everyone should have aright to put their case. As long as bribery and corruption are not involved and as long as access is equal for all parties, lobby groups can and do form an important part of the policy making process.”

              Also a fair point, but we should be wary of letting those with money use democracy to exploit those without.

              4. “A constitution is untenable at this stage of our history. It simply cannot happen – lets start with something simple like a flag and move up from there shall we?”

              Oh dear, you’re probably right. But it still remains an admirable goal.

              5. “People live in echo chambers of like minded opinions. Opposing views are seen as stupidity or signs of fascism. Trying to have civil discourse on any meaningful matter with someone who has actual views on a subject is extremely rare. The days of commonality are gone. In the ‘old’ days, while there were many differences of opinion at least everyone formed their opinions based on the same set of facts and there was more of a shared value system. These days people get information from wildly varying sources that reinforce their own beliefs and tend to avoid opposing views or devils advocacy of any type lest it burst their bubble.”

              This is why I spend so much effort “arrogantly pontificating” – I’m trying to encourage people to debate issues fairly, rather than to “win”, otherwise the debate is not even worth having really.

              Not even being able to agree on the facts is a big problem, and a symptom of deliberate attempts to undermine our faith in our institutions. How to come back from our current point, I’m unsure.

              Definitely agree that confirmation bias and beliefs silos are a big big problem. It’s to Pete’s credit that Your NZ hasn’t become an echo chamber. I’m really not sure how to overcome this. Was proposing to a flatmate last night that a good app would be a news-aggregator where you could set a “difficulty level” i.e. how much news you’d like to get from opposing viewpoints. But then I suspect people would accuse the aggregator of having its own biases.

            • Gezza

               /  July 11, 2017

              Speaking of untenable is Blazer away?
              I don’t think so. I’m still getting downticks. Might just not be posting at the moment. I think the flow of discussion has opened up here quite magnificently here meantime so I’m happy if he’s holiday.

            • Gezza

               /  July 11, 2017

              🌸

            • Gezza

               /  July 11, 2017

              POLITICS: ISSUES & POLICIES

              What’s the issue / problem
              What are the background & known facts
              What are the stats & what’s the source
              What’s the policy?
              What’s the objective?
              What’s the means to achieve the objective?
              What’s the predicted outcome, & by when?
              How will they measure & report progress?
              How’s it going to be paid for?
              Is it going to be a direct tax or indirect tax?

              and from the Government:
              If it’s already happening, what’s the progress?

              The news media’s not giving me that. So they’re not giving other voters that either.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  July 11, 2017

      Usual crap from Palmer. Voter apathy is justified in that economic policies have such indirect impacts on their lives that they don’t perceive the relationship and the issues the media highlight are mostly irrelevant to them (and to everyone outside the beltway). Also party political posturing bears almost no relation to what Government actually does.

      Palmer’s solutions as usual will make problems worse. The public rightly ignore them.

      • Mefrostate

         /  July 11, 2017

        “Voter apathy is justified in that economic policies have such indirect impacts on their lives that they don’t perceive the relationship”

        Palmer is proposing some ways we might be able to revive the relationship. Or are you suggesting that we don’t need to be engaged any more?

        “issues the media highlight are mostly irrelevant to them (and to everyone outside the beltway).”

        I’d prefer the media focus more on policy than on scandal, but scandals get clicks precisely because people are also interested in politicians behaviour.

        “Also party political posturing bears almost no relation to what Government actually does.”

        Don’t you think that sounds like a really bad thing? Shouldn’t we try to fix it?

        “Palmer’s solutions as usual will make problems worse.”

        How will each of the proposed solutions make the problem worse?

        “The public rightly ignore them.”

        Hilarious lack of self-awareness here.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  July 11, 2017

          Can’t be bothered with your crap, Mefro. Go annoy someone else.

          • Mefrostate

             /  July 11, 2017

            It seems you don’t really want to have your views challenged, but rather would prefer an echo-chamber. Why don’t you head over to another site where you can complain about lefties all day, receive pats on the back, and have to “deal with my crap”?

            “Your NZ is for discussing New Zealand social issues and politics, for debating, informing and getting feedback from anyone who is interested in participating.”

            • Mefrostate

               /  July 11, 2017

              *not have to deal with my crap, obviously.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  July 11, 2017

            No problem with having my views challenged. Do have a problem with your incessant petty personal sniping and arrogant pontificating.

            Still waiting for the counter example I asked for yesterday but not holding my breath.

            • Mefrostate

               /  July 11, 2017

              “petty personal sniping.” Do you have examples of personal attacks? I do have a personal issue with your behaviour, but it’s mostly because I don’t like your use of slurs & generalisations like “loony left”, your closed-mindedness, and that I don’t think you participate in a very good-faith way.

              “arrogant pontificating.” Examples?

              “Still waiting for the counter example I asked for yesterday but not holding my breath.” See here for a continuation of that discussion: https://yournz.org/2017/07/11/open-forum-tuesday-139/#comment-200927

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 11, 2017

              So long as some of the Left behave like lunatics I’ll continue to call them the loony Left, Mefro. And if you want to identify with them, that’s your problem.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  July 11, 2017

              The Loony Left as opposed to all right thinking people?

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  July 11, 2017

            • Mefrostate

               /  July 11, 2017

              Guess I’ll throw “retarded Right” around then, and the quality of discussion will slip even further.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 11, 2017

              There are plenty of other loonies, Patzie. I try to avoid all of them.

              Throw whatever you like, Mefro, but I won’t identify with it the way you do.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  July 11, 2017

          Mefro, I think you’re conflating the public’s addiction to click-bait and scandals with its interest in politics. The scandal aspect is where interest starts and stops.
          Palmer’s solutions will result in pointy headed busy bodies sticking their nose in while the rest of the world gets on with their lives.
          There is a general disinterest in politics and it is no reflection on democracy, just an indication people have better things to do with their lives, and in many ways elections are a case of “same shit, different shovel”. Most parties want the same things and only argue where the levers are set in order to get there.
          It would take the election of a Corbyn like figure who throws away the rules and inflicts complete economic disaster before the general populace breaks out of its political malaise and takes any interest again.
          This is not necessarily a bad thing.

          • Pete Kane

             /  July 11, 2017

            “He’s making $3000 a week but no-one knows if Todd Barclay will ever return to Parliament ”
            https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/94620270/hes-making-3000-a-week-but-noone-knows-if-todd-barclay-will-ever-return-to-parliament

            My limited interest has been watching where the various loyalties seem to lie.

            • He could be working hard in his electorate. or not.

              What’s worse, Barclay getting paid to do little or nothing, or a whole bunch of MPs being paid while they campaign to get themselves re-elected – and also spend up large (taxpayers’ money) travelling around the country?

          • Mefrostate

             /  July 11, 2017

            “I think you’re conflating the public’s addiction to click-bait and scandals with its interest in politics. The scandal aspect is where interest starts and stops.”

            Sadly, I suspect you’re right. I want the long-form investigative journalism & policy analysis, damn it. The Economist is my favourite publication because they provide this.

            “Palmer’s solutions will result in pointy headed busy bodies sticking their nose in while the rest of the world gets on with their lives.”

            My head’s not pointy 😦

            “There is a general disinterest in politics and it is no reflection on democracy, just an indication people have better things to do with their lives, and in many ways elections are a case of “same shit, different shovel”. Most parties want the same things and only argue where the levers are set in order to get there.
            It would take the election of a Corbyn like figure who throws away the rules and inflicts complete economic disaster before the general populace breaks out of its political malaise and takes any interest again.”

            Yeah your middle sentence here is pretty accurate (except for in the US, where the parties have become weirdly polarised on relatively fringe issues). Agree about Corbyn, and it’s possibly one of the silver linings of him and Trump, people are certainly re-engaged with their politics! Then boring old Macron (who I really quite like) managed to succeed but on the basis of historic low turnout. Hm.

      • PDB

         /  July 11, 2017

        Palmer has stuffed up the country enough already, ironically without voter approval.

  2. sorethumb

     /  July 11, 2017

    I don’t believe we should pay much attention to the Treaty because it didn’t deal with reality (future demographics) and in that sense, neither side would have been accepting of the others.
    Bullshit, Backlash, and Bleeding Hearts. By David Slack:

    “Time for some expert help here. The first lecturer I had at law school who taught our class anything Treaty-related was Alex Frame. [ ….]
    People sometimes ask me, ‘How do I see the Treaty. How should we think of the Treaty?’ I’ve always said that the first article of the Treaty – the kawanatanga part – is very strong – much stronger than some Maori are prepared to concede, and the second article, which guarantees rangatiratanga is also very strong – much stronger than many Pakeha are prepared to concede. So how can we have these two strong articles sitting there? I’m tempted sometimes by this idea. In a way both sides gambled. The Crown gambled. Why was it prepared to sign up to Article II? Well, in a sense the Crown gambled that there would be assimilation. And therefore if there was assimilation, as you will see. Article II would become increasingly unimportant. On the other hand, Maori gambled. After all, why did Maori sign up for Article I – and by the way, don’t go for these readings that say Article I was only giving the Queen power over Pakeha. The most elementary reading of the Maori version of the first article shows that that is completely untenable. It gives the Queen te Kawanatanga katoa – all – of the kawanatanga; o ratou wenua – of their lands. Now, which lands is that? That’s the lands of the chiefs. That’s all it can be -have a look at the structure and I challenge anyone to show me an even faintly tenable reading which can dispute that it’s all the territory of New Zealand.
    So why did Maori sign up to that? Well, I think they gambled. I think they gambled that the as they were in 1840, but would stay approximately such that there would be a preponderance of Maori and that the newcomers would be relatively few. I know there is a reference in the preamble to others coming, but I think the gamble was that if the demographics stayed favourable to Maori then this kawanatanga thing would be a really abstract sort of notion in the background.

  3. sorethumb

     /  July 11, 2017

    According to the media, the big story about G2 is what ABC Journalist said about Donald Trump. “It has gone viral- here it is”. Russell Brown has tweeted it.
    What about the speech where Donald asks “The big question is does Western civilisation have the will to survive”?
    https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Donald+trump+%2B+TheWest&oq=Donald+trump+%2B+TheWest&aqs=chrome..69i57.9931j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  July 11, 2017

      Yes. And people wonder why voters are “apathetic”. They are just turned off by the media self-regarding circus.

      • Gezza

         /  July 11, 2017

        Yes they are, and that’s a problem. There is no sound analysis done by parties or media so the public remains largely confused & uninformed about important issues. And so do many of our elected representatives it seems.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  July 11, 2017

      Great quote from the article on Fox.com:

      “I have no doubt that these critics have significant disagreements with Donald Trump. But that doesn’t give them the right to caricature his speech, and then argue against the caricature.”
      http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/07/10/trump-speech-defending-west-gives-vapors-to-western-journalists.html

      • What’s going on in that country HFD? – Chaffetz bewildered.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  July 11, 2017

          Comey is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. Everything I read about him and his actions makes me go cross-eyed.
          As the your actual question – I plead the 5th!

  4. sorethumb

     /  July 11, 2017

    The media (people) control a strategic asset: information about the world and information about ourselves: RNZ loves our feedback but doesn’t share it (except for a couple of emails).
    Their dial is set to the likes of Russell Brown’s comfort level.
    …….
    I went off the Christchurch Press after the editors hissy fit following the anti-smacking referendum.
    Maybe it all has something to do with the education act requiring academics be social justice warriors as well as objective academics. If your brain is filled with emotion how can you remain objective?