Massey, free speech, racism and Māori issues

The Massey University free speech debate flared up after politician (ex Leader of the Opposition) and activist on a number of issues Don Brash was prevented from speaking about his experience as a politician.

The person who cancelled the event that Brash was due to speak at, vice-chancellor, cited security issues, but it is clear she didn’t want Brash to speak due to what she claims is his ‘racism’.

17 July Jan Thomas (NZH): Free speech is welcome at universities, hate speech is not

Let me be clear, hate speech is not free speech. Moreover, as Moana Jackson has eloquently argued, free speech has, especially in colonial societies, long been mobilised as a vehicle for racist comments, judgements and practices.

Beyond the reach of the law, however, the battle against hate speech is fought most effectively through education and courageous leadership, rather than through suppression or legal censure.

And this is where universities can take positive action by providing a venue for reasoned discussion and cogent argument.

Universities are characterised by the academic values of tolerance, civility, and respect for human dignity.

And that is why it is important to identify and call out any shift from free speech towards hate speech. The challenge we face is to clarify when that shift occurs and to counter it with reason and compassion.

It should be countered with better arguments, not banning.

8 August (edited from an interview on Newstalk ZB): Massey vice chancellor Jan Thomas tries to explain Brash ban

What I have said was that ah there was an event held in ah the Manawatu here on our campus, ah from ah Hobson’s Pledge ah which ah was particularly offensive for ah particularly our Maori staff, and ah that is not the sort of thing that I would like to see at a university campus. Um that wasn’t ah Dr Brash speaking, um it was around ah Hobson’s Pledge that particular time.

So those sorts of events are events ah where the discussion um moves from being one ah of talking about ah the issues and evidence based ah good rational debate where people are able to speak about um their perspectives on a whole range of different things.

I also am quite happy to stand behind my comments that hate speech is not welcome on campus, and the way I would consider hate speech is ah when hate speech might demean or humiliate or silence groups of people based on a common trait, whether it be sexuality or religion or race or whatever, um because ah that is essentially ah the same as bullying of a larger group of people, and we don’t tolerate  bullying in the playground do we…

In emails (from Kiwiblog Massey lying over cancellation of Brash speech):

So I sum, I really want to find a way to indicate that Brash is not welcome on campus unless he agrees to abide by our values and the laws against hate speech.

The notion of exploring ideas and free speech on campus should be providing that it does not cause harm to others and does not break the laws. Hate speech had no place on our campus and as a te Tiriti led university our values need to be respected too. I feel a great deal of responsibility around the WHS responsibilities to our Māori staff and students.

I think these are quite common type views where there are valid concerns over biased and racist attacks on Māori (and other minority races in New Zealand, which most people have some connection to).

But it can also be used to shut down valid different opinions on Māori issues. Don Brash has become a major figure in these discussions since he became infamous for his NATIONHOOD – Don Brash Speech Orewa Rotary Club in 2004.

His more recent association with Hobson’s Pledge “He iwi tahi tatou: We are now one people.” has kept the attacks on him coming – and this played a part in Thomas’ ban. Like:

And:

The problem is that Brash just needs to open his mouth now to be called racist.

There are alternative views:

There are important issues facing Māori  in Aotearoa, and they should speak up on them, as many do. Of course there are a wide range of Māori views, and they should all feel free to speak up.

Non-Māori people should not be excluded from these debates – Māori  issues affect every New Zealander.

‘Hating’ someone else’s view does not mean there is hate speech.

I think it is important to, if anything, err towards allowing and enabling challenging views and debate, not shutting it down because someone claims that they are or may be offended.

People like Don Brash have as much right to speak as anyone – and Brash is very well aware of the scrutiny anything he says will get, and will be careful he sticks to carefully expressing his views on  contentious issues .

Jan Thomas:

What I do object to is where um speech that demeans or humiliates or silences groups of people based on a common trait. Ah in other words playing the man and not the ball, ah is ah is something that we don’t accept on a university campus, that everyone should feel that they can express their views in a way that is not um going to be subject to being demeaned or humiliated.

I think that Brash more than most plays the ball and not the man or woman.

Thomas banned the man and dropped the free speech ball. She has demeaned and humiliated herself.

People who try to stop speech they disagree with, whether they call it hate speech, racist or demeaning, end up demeaning their own arguments.

But this debate looks to be far from over, From a statement by the Tertiary Education Union President:

87 Comments

  1. sorethumb

     /  September 21, 2018

    Universities are characterised by the academic values of tolerance, civility, and respect for human dignity.
    ……….
    skepticism, inquiry…?

     Don Brash has become a major figure in these discussions since he became infamous for his NATIONHOOD – Don Brash Speech Orewa Rotary Club in 2004.
    …………
    Brash was right: we are seeing the folly today where Maori are being given authority without evidence of competence and the Government uses the media to create an illusion of majority opinion to bombard the population with te reo.

    Tertiary Education Union President is a half-wit.

    • Pickled Possum

       /  September 21, 2018

      Makes me laff out loud often when I see pakeha people trying to justify their racial displeasure over Maori. ALL their knowledge of things Maori written my pakeha …do you realise how stupid and dishonest that is??

  2. Griff.

     /  September 21, 2018

    Brash’s views are shared by about 50% of New Zealanders.
    We very much have a right to hold them .
    There is nothing in the treaty that gives rights to maori any different to those all New Zealand citizens hold. The idea that maori must have separate representation is apartheid.
    Apartheid Separate development has no place in a liberal democracy. No law should have racial difference written into it . Having laws that give different rights based on ones ancestors is called….RACISM…. .

    • Gezza

       /  September 21, 2018

      There is nothing in the treaty that gives rights to maori any different to those all New Zealand citizens hold.
      . . . . . . . . . . . .
      Article the second [Article 2]
      Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.

      Second article
      In the English text, Māori leaders and people, collectively and individually, were confirmed and guaranteed ‘exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties’. Māori also agreed to the Crown’s exclusive right to purchase their land. Some Māori (and British) later stated that they understood the Crown to have a first option rather than an exclusive right to buy.

      In the Māori text, Māori were guaranteed ‘te tino rangatiratanga’ or the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages, and all their property and treasures. Māori also agreed to give the Crown the right to buy their land if they wished to sell it. It is not certain if the Maori text clearly conveyed the implications of exclusive Crown purchase.
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
      It was only the Maori version that was signed by most signatories.
      A deal’s a deal. A contract is a contract.

      • Griff.

         /  September 21, 2018

        their lands, villages, and all their property and treasures
        Exactly the same right as you enjoy under law.
        The right to posses private property no more no less.
        ‘te tino rangatiratanga’ = citizenship.
        The clause that maori land could only be brought by the crown was clean up the dishonest property speculation rife at the time. Maori them self’s were not guilt less some maori were selling the same land multiple times or selling land they did not poses.
        The treaty says nothing about rights to sit on a council’s in maori only seats, to have maori only seats in parliament or to have representation based only on race in boards of any kind.

        • Gezza

           /  September 21, 2018

          In the Māori text, Māori were guaranteed ‘te tino rangatiratanga’ or the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages, and all their property and treasures. Māori also agreed to give the Crown the right to buy their land if they wished to sell it. It is not certain if the Maori text clearly conveyed the implications of exclusive Crown purchase.
          – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
          1. the term used for treasures I believe was taonga
          2. confiscated or wrongly misappropriated land (only some of which is now being returned to them – much of it can’t be returned because it too well-settled) is theirs exclusively in this Agreement. Good will means that exclusivity should enable a specific say on such matters.
          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
          taonga
          1. (noun) property, goods, possession, effects, object.

          I āhua kōrekoreko ngā kanohi o te Māori i te kitenga i ngā taonga whakamīharo a te Pākehā, mahue ana ngā taonga Māori, whiua ana ki tahaki (TTT 1/5/1923:4). / Māori eyes were a bit dazzled when they saw the marvelous equipment of the Pākehā, Māori tools were abandoned and tossed aside.

          2. (noun) treasure, anything prized – applied to anything considered to be of value including socially or culturally valuable objects, resources, phenomenon, ideas and techniques. Examples of the word’s use in early texts show that this broad range of meanings is not recent, while a similar range of meanings from some other Eastern Polynesian languages support this (e.g. Tuamotuan). The first example sentence below was first published in a narrative in 1854 by Sir George Grey, but was probably written in 1849 or earlier.

          E tū ana te haka, ko tō te tangata māori taonga nui tēnei mō te manuhiri (NM 1928:122). / Haka were performed as this was a great treasure of human beings for guests.
          Kei ētahi whenua he taonga nui anō te puna wai (TKP 28/6/1858:3). / In some countries a spring of water is a highly valued treasure.
          I ētahi wā ka whakatakotoria he mere, he patu pounamu, parāoa rānei ki runga i te tūpāpaku. Ki te pīrangi te iwi kia whakahokia mai aua taonga, ka huria ngā kakau ki te iwi. Ki te huria ngā kakau ki te tūpāpaku, ko te tohu me ngaro atu aua taonga ki tōna taha (RR 1974:21). / Sometimes a mere, or a greenstone or whalebone short weapon was laid down on the body of the deceased. If the people wanted those treasures to be returned, the handles were turned to the people, but if the handles were turned to the body that was a sign that those treasures should go with him/her.

          • Griff.

             /  September 21, 2018

            Good will means that exclusivity should enable a specific say on such matters.

            The dangers of a written constitution .
            The document gets distorted beyond it meaning and intent to justify ideas and situations never considered by its creators. You are adding something not in the text because you believe it is justified and claiming the Treaty says so .
            Your idea is not based on the Treaty it is something else.
            The basic tenet’s of liberal Democracy “one man one equal vote” leaves no room for race based apartheid in a just society.

            • It never ceases to amaze me how few people seem to grasp the huge dangers of a written constitution. The fact that it is usually the first thing proposed by any newly arrived despot should give clues to even the doziest.

              Why do folk think the EU is so desperate for one that it effectively enforced it through the back door against the wishes of almost everyone by deceitfully calling it a treaty?

      • sorethumb

         /  September 21, 2018

        A deal’s a deal. A contract is a contract.
        ……
        And it’s not a deal with anyone. That is the problem. The Treaty was a naive undertaking. I maintain that Maori had no clue as to future demographics (how would NZr’s have reacted in the 1980’s if they knew the state of Auckland today?). In the same way that we are swamped with Asians (and no better off – unless you were in real estate), the government kept it’s intentions secret. On other other hand we Pakeha don’t accept Maori ownership of the foreshore and seabed.

        • Gezza

           /  September 21, 2018

          This is what happens when people don’t keep their word. A shit of a mess.

          • sorethumb

             /  September 21, 2018

            It was never going to work Gezza, it is too ill defined.

            • Gezza

               /  September 21, 2018

              So they were conned? It appears the con has backfired.

            • Corky

               /  September 21, 2018

              The treaty is null and void, Thumbs,

              http://ask.un.org/faq/14594

            • Pickled Possum

               /  September 21, 2018

              Desperate talk there corky The harder you and your friends deny Maori the stronger they get.
              But on the other hand if te Treaty is void … then what are you and your pakeha friends think your doing.
              Oh that’s right showing your stupidity and ignorance racism.

          • sorethumb

             /  September 21, 2018

            The Treaty was signed under duress because Maori were dominant and British power hadn’t been projected into that arena.

            • Gerrit

               /  September 21, 2018

              This letter from the 13 Ngapuhi chiefs would suggest that the truth is markedly opposed to your Maori favouring revised history lessons.

              “We have heard that the tribe of Marian [the French] is at hand, coming to take away our land. Therefore we pray thee to become our friend and the guardian of these islands, lest the teasing of other tribes should come near us, and lest strangers should come and take away our land. And if any of thy people should be troublesome and vicious towards us we pray thee to be angry with them that they may be obedient, lest the anger of the people of this land fall upon them. This letter is from us, the chief’s of the natives of New Zealand.”

              http://onenzfoundation.co.nz/wordpress/articles/treaty-of-waitangi/why-the-13-chiefs-wrote-to-his-majesty-the-king-in-1831/

              Great unrest among the various tribes (that would lead to the frequently glossed over musket wars) and the threat of the French colonisation meant Maori chiefs, at least in the North, was one of seeking English protection

            • sorethumb

               /  September 21, 2018

              It doesn’t contradict my assertion that a. Maori didn’t appreciate the scale of the coming inward migration. or b. that Maori had given up sovereignty (ie a status quo) . Because forests and fisheries weren’t an issue until masses of people came requiring land for farming? Likewise as i say from colonists point of view they weren’t ever going to agree to being under the Native thumb.

            • phantom snowflake

               /  September 21, 2018

              The Treaty was signed under duress because Maori were dominant and British power hadn’t been projected into that arena.
              HAHAHA that’s fucken hilarious! Funniest piece of revisionist History I’ve ever read. It’s also kind of consistent with your narrative of Old White Men being (currently) oppressed by some fictional Maori elite.

        • Gezza

           /  September 21, 2018

          I maintain that Maori had no clue as to future demographics
          Well, obviously, but this is relevant to the treaty agreement how?

          • sorethumb

             /  September 21, 2018

            Because they were agreeing to a different situation. The Wellington chief told William Wakefield he almost fell over when he saw how many people came off a ship. He expected one or two Pakeha at each pa.

      • robertguyton

         /  September 21, 2018

        Gezza’s right. The “treasures” of Maori extend beyond anything defined as “private property”.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  September 21, 2018

          They only extend to what was known and claimed at the time.

        • Gezza

           /  September 21, 2018

          They do, robert, in the sense that many things that are precious to us are treasured. And in the case of many people, myself included, freedom of speech, the freedom to express, consider and argue different views, is a taonga.

          However there’s also an element of what Alan says that’s true. The view of those at the time on both sides unfortunately clearly had different concepts of what “things” and existing “rights” Maori were guaranteed they would retain control of. The white European mainly British settlers and officials obviously had the British legal concepts in mind, believing them to be superior and to have been accepted by Maori signatories.

          There is no way Maori signatories at the time can have fully understood the full import of the British legal system as it would be subsequently be held to relate to them. The Waitangi Tribunal was established among other things to help work this problem through.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  September 21, 2018

        All the signatories are long dead including the Crown. Any treaty can be abrogated at any time. You cannot bind the Crown. Everything has moved on in seven generations since. As Hobson said, “Now we are one people”. Maori are as much a part of the Crown as I am and you are. It is right to preserve and respect genuine property rights as existed and assigned by the treaty. It is wrong to claim sovereignty and invent new property rights and new privileges that create racist separation, privileges and division.

    • Pickled Possum

       /  September 21, 2018

      Griff … brash views shared by 50% of NZ’ers ….back that lie up with a link or 2 …oh you can’t.

      • sorethumb

         /  September 21, 2018

        you can’t contradict the assertion either. We are only treated to polls/referenda that work in elites favour.

        • robertguyton

           /  September 21, 2018

          He can contradict the assertion by asking for proof.Griff made the claim.

        • Gezza

           /  September 21, 2018

          As Christopher Hitchens famously said:

          “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

      • sorethumb

         /  September 21, 2018

        Brash’s Orewa speech had about 85% support?

    • PartisanZ

       /  September 21, 2018

      “Modern experts in international law are in broad agreement that the Treaty of Waitangi was a valid Treaty under international law. As Professor Ian Brownlie wrote in 1991:

      There can be no doubt … that the Treaty of Waitangi presupposed the legal and political capacity of the Chiefs of New Zealand to make an agreement which was valid on the international plane.

      As such, the Treaty created real rights and obligations in international law. And, under the international law of succession, the rights and obligations undertaken in 1840 devolve in contemporary times to the Crown in right of New Zealand. At international law, the Crown has to honour its guarantees of tino rangatiratanga and equal rights.”

      – Sir Geoffrey Palmer & Andrew Butler – ‘Towards Democratic Renewal’ – Victoria University Press 2018

      • PartisanZ

         /  September 21, 2018

        pg 176 …

      • Griff.

         /  September 21, 2018

        Actually under international law if a treaty between two sovereign nations is disputed due to difference in translation it is null and void.

      • PDB

         /  September 21, 2018

        Sir Geoffrey Palmer has stuffed so much up for this country anything he says nowadays is not taken seriously.

        • PartisanZ

           /  September 21, 2018

          Yeah PDB … I know … and “the vast majority of” and “most” New Zealanders support Don Brash and the views of affiliated White Superiority and race-fear-and-hatred groups …

          … all of them made up of the same relatively small number of affiliated people … who write blogs and sell books to each other …

          And there’s so much evidence to back both your claim about Palmer and mine about the Kiwi KKK …

          ‘Towards Democratic Renewal’ doesn’t state exactly how many people engaged with Palmer & Butler between 2016 & 2018 but it would appear to be approaching 10,000 individuals – from eminent to ordinary – and scores of groups representing many more.

          Matike Mai Aotearoa, which is referenced and taken seriously in the book, represents approximately 10,000 hapu/iwi Maori people in itself alone …

          Constitutionalism is being approached from a variety of directions … It’s gonna happen … but if you don’t take it seriously that’s fine by me …

          • sorethumb

             /  September 21, 2018

            Spat the dummy already though?

          • Griff.

             /  September 21, 2018

            PartisanZ
            As I have pointed out to you many times.
            We had a country wide consultation on our Constitution that attempted to include all New Zealanders not just maori
            One of the ideas they included was making the treaty part of a written Constitution.
            The idea was loudly rejected by the majority of submissions.
            Maori wards have been put to referendum in half a dozen councils around the country
            In all cases were ratepayers had a chance to vote the idea of maori wards has been rejected .

            Matike Mai Aotearoa,represents 10,000 separatist maori out of a population of 4.500,000 kiwis.
            The country belongs to all of us not just those who had some ancestors here before 1800.

            • PartisanZ

               /  September 21, 2018

              Palmer & Butler are continuing the conversation begun by CAP in an attempt to include ALL New Zealanders …

              CAP, you might remember Griff, recommended that the conversation continue but the National government who appointed them made no provision for in continuing … surprise surprise!

              Some, perhaps a significant number and possibly even a majority of your “majority of submissions” are the “cloned submissions” identified by CAP in their report …

              The ‘Right Brigade’ activism I referred to yesterday … All good. Everyone’s entitled to be an activist … and appointed panels are entitled to identify them …

              Similarly, Palmer & Butler received what they called a “blizzard of submissions” over one weekend …

              And yes, Maori representation on Councils is still ruled by the tyranny of the majority – notably of a minority of voters – rather than by upholding Treaty rights and obligations … or even trying to find a way to uphold them …

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  September 21, 2018

            We’ve seen what sort of half-wits inhabit our universities now. No doubt most are earnestly licking the Treaty industry’s boots.

      • Geoffrey

         /  September 21, 2018

        This self-server created the Treaty mess in the first place with his idiot inclusion in the RMA of a clause that (he thought no one would read) that served as the initial irritant. Ever since then he has sought to excuse his gross intellectual blunder by periodically offering observations designed to reinforce the shaky foundation of that original error. Ultimately, he will fail. The untenable edifice, wrought from attaching racial privilege to one side of the fundamentally flawed assertion that the Treaty is an enduring “partnership”, will eventually collapse. Better that happens sooner than later, less the harm that ensues destroys our little country.

  3. PartisanZ

     /  September 21, 2018

    Presumably you mean “our little country” that was always so pure, so unified, so peacefully “at one” … until the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act … ?

    Our little country that “forged its identity” not from great Polynesian navigators, subsequent hapu/iwi Maori civilization, European arrival and influence, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Land Wars and subsequent colonisation, Colonial, Dominion then ‘Independent’ government … but instead at Gallipoli, the heights of Chunuk Bair, and upon the killing fields of Passchendaele?

    White folk felling the mighty trees, mustering sheep across the giant high-country stations and, of course, scoring tries on the rugby field …?

    Talk of “harm” now, at this late stage, strongly justifies Ani Mikaere’s (and other’s) term “cultural amnesia” …

    Sorry … It completely justifies it.

    • PartisanZ

       /  September 21, 2018

      Meant to be a reply to Geoffrey above …

    • Geoffrey

       /  September 21, 2018

      You seem to have the history re-jigged. The Treaty created colony. There were no wars between Maori and the Crown. Some parts of some tribes did rebel against the lawful Sovereign. This lead to a number of police actions with limited objectives to restore order.

      • PartisanZ

         /  September 21, 2018

        Okay … so you’ve been completely sucked-in by the revisionist history of the likes of Mike Butler, Bruce Moon, Doc Robinson et al … part of the tiny ‘Right Brigade’ (RF&H) legion who write, self-publish and sell books to each other … Here’s the accepted academic history –

        “After fighting broke out again in Taranaki in early 1863, Governor George Grey turned his attention to the region he saw as the root of his problems with Māori: Waikato.

        This was the heartland of the anti-landselling King Movement (Kīngitanga). Grey vowed to ‘dig around’ the Kīngitanga until it fell.

        On 11 July he issued an ultimatum to the ‘chiefs of Waikato’ to pledge their allegiance to Queen Victoria. The following day — before Waikato Māori had even received this message — a force led by Lieutenant-General Duncan Cameron crossed the Mangatāwhiri stream, a tributary of the Waikato River near Mercer.

        This waterway marked the aukati — a line that should not be crossed — between the European settlement of Auckland and the territory under the mana (protection) of the Māori King. The key conflict of the New Zealand Wars had begun.”

        https://nzhistory.govt.nz/war/war-in-waikato

        Of course you can always claim, and probably will, that the entire government, bureaucracy and academia have been infiltrated and overtaken by “Cultural Marxists” in their “long march through institutions” … In which case they’ve been extraordinarily successful, haven’t they?

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  September 21, 2018

          They were called the NZ Wars rather than the Maori Wars because Maori fought on both sides. Correct?

          • PartisanZ

             /  September 21, 2018

            And the fact that Maori fought on both sides proves what Alan …?

            Does it prove that Grey didn’t intend to “dig around” the Kingitanga until it fell?

            Does it prove that Grey didn’t order Cameron to cross the Mangatawhiri before receiving a response to his ‘ultimatum’? Grey was the aggressor …

            Does it prove that the primary cause of the conflict was Grey’s, settler government and settler displeasure at “the anti-land selling King Movement (Kingitanga)” … the settler lust for land … land specifically protected by Te Tiriti o Waitangi …

            Pakeha fought on both sides too you know … Kimble Bent …

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 21, 2018

              Some parts of some tribes did rebel against the lawful sovereign.

            • PartisanZ

               /  September 21, 2018

              Or, alternatively, proclaimed their tino rangatiratanga?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  September 21, 2018

              Same thing. The point is that this was belated and isolated. Many Maori accepted the Queen’s sovereignty as provided for in the Treaty and the protection it provided. Where this was challenged was often due to land disputes as you have advanced rather than as a constitutional issue.

    • sorethumb

       /  September 21, 2018

      Presumably you mean “our little country” that was always so pure, so unified, so peacefully “at one” … until the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act … ?
      ……….
      In 1956 Census 95% of us were NZ European. That would include people with Maori Ancestry.

      Of course this task was not left to Ranginui alone Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou was preceded by a number of Pakeha historians and others who helped construct a very different history of colonialism. Honourable mention ought to be made of Dick Scott, Claudia Orange, Jock Philips, James Belich and Anne Salmond. But Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou which was published in 1990 was the most important and influential colonial history by a Maori author. What is interesting is that his criticisms were couched in a language which was familiar to the middle classes who provided the management and leadership to our core institutions. His was an original and powerful voice in critiquing the state (although of course not te only voice). It was a voice that took the arguments of an international politics of liberation : the Marxism of Gramsci the notion of hegemony the critiques of colonialism offered by Fanon and Césaire the liberation theory and the possibility of a transformative education of Freire and Illich and put them into a New Zealand vernacular. Here was a set of intellectual ideas applied to the particular circumstances of this country. He was influenced by critical and Marxists traditions but not in a theoretical or dogmatic way ultimate benchmark was that these ideas needed to work in a New Zealand setting and they needed to speak to New Zealanders including those New zealanders who had no interest in Marxism.

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/thetreatydebates/audio/2491827/treaty-debate-1-2010

      • PartisanZ

         /  September 21, 2018

        Gee … Golly gosh … History is an evolving subject … Well I never!

        Personally I wouldn’t have it any other way … The ‘original’ or previous history was written by justifiers of the dominant culture to justify the dominant culture …

        “In 1769 when Captain James Cook discovered New Zealand …”

        And would you know it … People’s cultural identifications can actually shift over time …

        OMG … ‘We’ just can’t handle it … We must have all been duped …

        No … I reckon it’s Metathesiophobia … Fear of change … Natural change too. Entirely understandable and comprehensible change …

        Here’s the real rub I reckon: Fairness, Justice, Society, Constitutionality … whatever you want to call it … Living … here in Aotearoa New Zealand is “circumstantial” upon a Treaty between hapu/iwi Maori and The Crown …

        This is not the case in Switzerland and other European countries [many of us identify with] that have homogeneous populations … nor is it the case in England where, as far as I know, there weren’t any Treaties between different ‘tribes’ or races …

        • sorethumb

           /  September 21, 2018

          The problem is whenever you try to do the Maori thing people push back.
          You have Guyon (stick it up your…) and his free te reo lessons; you have Maori wanting representation on councils based on nothing more than “I’m Maori” when there are better qualified candidates (people with ecology degrees); you have people upset about walking tracks “it’s my ancestor” (or something); you have people having to consult about research etc, etc. and you have claims of historical trauma not matter how tenuous the connection.

        • sorethumb

           /  September 21, 2018

          Gee … Golly gosh … History is an evolving subject … Well I never!
          ……….
          history is political, if historians are ostracised are weeded out we get a silly situation like Massey. Michael King pointed out the biases of virtue signalling historians [Next!]

          “People’s cultural identifications can actually shift over time …”

          From European to maimed Maori.

          “Here’s the real rub I reckon: Fairness, Justice, Society, Constitutionality … whatever you want to call it … Living … here in Aotearoa New Zealand is “circumstantial” upon a Treaty between hapu/iwi Maori and The Crown …”

          BS to that nothing says a treaty can’t be broken. The well being of the vast majority outweighs a historical relic that is politically unworkable. Moralityis not based on “a deal is a deal”, there are five foundations
          Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm
          Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating
          Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal
          Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion
          Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation.

          The left who want to “decolonise” are the subversives. The same idiot thinking gave us Pol Pot. The left are in nutcase territory.

  4. Geoffrey Monks

     /  September 21, 2018

    I’m not sure that agreeing with you contention that our organs of government and the establishment have been infiltrated really adds much to the discussion. Back to the point though,…. When the Governor issued a proclamation to renegade factions in 1863, that was 23 years (an entire generation) after entering into agreement. This was in the face of persistent violations of the Treaty and was not a Quick fix. The only thing that could be described as ‘sudden’ was the renegade’s realisation that the Crown was done with threats and was resolved to put down the revolt by force of arms if need be.
    Even today, the punishment meted out to the renegades was extraordinary light. Short of the customary butchering of the defeated (which is the norm even today), the only realistic punishment was land confiscation. Even that, for the most part, was returned in fairly short order.

  5. PartisanZ

     /  September 21, 2018

    I’ll go with official rather than revisionist history thanks –

    “In the autumn of 1863 Grey provoked a resumption of hostilities in Taranaki by ordering the military reoccupation of the Tātaraimaka Block south-west of New Plymouth. On 4 May an ambush at nearby Ōakura resulted in the deaths of nine British soldiers.

    Grey pointed the finger at the Kīngitanga, which he alleged was not only behind this ambush but was also planning a ‘bloodthirsty’ assault on Auckland. Claims that there was ‘little doubt [that the Waikato] are at the bottom of most of the mischief’ were used to convince Grey’s superiors in London that an attack on Auckland was imminent. By the time it was clear that no such attack was going to occur, another 3000 troops had been sent to New Zealand.

    Was Auckland really at risk?

    When fighting recommenced in Taranaki, settlers south of Auckland armed themselves, barricaded their homes and stockaded their churches. But Auckland was important to the Waikato economy and Waikato Māori would have been reluctant to lose this market.

    Historian James Belich suggests that economic envy was another Pākehā motivation for war. With greater control of Waikato resources their dependence on Māori could be reduced.”

    https://nzhistory.govt.nz/war/war-in-waikato/invasion-plans

  6. Geoffrey

     /  September 21, 2018

    “In the autumn of 1863 Grey provoked a resumption of hostilities in Taranaki by ordering the military reoccupation of the Tātaraimaka Block south-west of New Plymouth. On 4 May an ambush at nearby Ōakura resulted in the deaths of nine British soldiers.” Do try to remember that these events took place 23 years after Maori had sought the treaty. The provocation was not Grey’s but was occasioned by the elements in revolt. The practice of defining all acts by the tribesmen in revolt as justifiable resistance and those police actions of the Crown’s agents as “provocation” is only of use to those wishing to score a debating point. It does not change history, no matter how often it is prated.

    • PartisanZ

       /  September 21, 2018

      You’re kidding me, right?

      Are you referring to the Treaty that guaranteed them “exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties’ and ‘the Crown’s exclusive right to purchase their land’?

      And this is in the English version … which is not the version the Chiefs signed …

      “In the Māori text, Māori were guaranteed ‘te tino rangatiratanga’ or the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages, and all their property and treasures. Māori also agreed to give the Crown the right to buy their land if they wished to sell it.”

      https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts

      “Two days after the Waireka engagement, Captain Cracroft was directed by the Governor twenty miles south of New Plymouth to Warea kāinga where he anchored about 2000 yards offshore, with heavy surf running, he opened fire on the pā and kainga.

      Following the bombing of Warea various military regiments were detached with redoubts erected in the Tataraimaka block marking the Crowns protracted military presence in the Taranaki iwi rohe and despite a declaration of peace agreed to in 1861, an increased military presence by 1863 led to the killing of a small party of soldiers trespassing on Māori Land in Oakura.”

      https://taranaki.iwi.nz/our-history/war-and-confiscation/

      • PartisanZ

         /  September 21, 2018

        I reckon it’s fairly safe to say that the underlying intent and resolve of the Taranaki wars, whether the settlers were fully conscious of it or not, was the complete extermination and/or displacement of Taranaki Maori …

        This is not to say that some of the Maori hadn’t transgressed ‘laws’ imposed upon them by Pakeha … and not to say there weren’t some disputes between Maori and between Maori and the Crown regarding land sales …

        The transgression of some Pakeha laws and regulations by the people of Parihaka, such as their ploughing and the return of fencing materials to ngahere and papatuanuku, will forever remain triumphs of indigenous protest against colonization …

        And John Bryce’s legislation suspending habeas corpus for Maori ‘rebels’ and subsequent ‘leadership’ of the invasion of Parihaka shall forever remain a blight upon our history …

        … unless, perhaps, we take that “leap of faith” …?

        • Gezza

           /  September 21, 2018

          For Parihaka the leap of faith has been taken. The Crown acknowledgment that the government’s actions during and after the protests were disgraceful, unjustified and shameful. The apology was formal, correct, overdue and part of the Treaty Settlement and has been accepted as the start of a new relationship by the affected iwi.This is as it should be. That is not to say the way forward is clear. Good will & reason on both sides must prevail. There are two different views and the situation has changed so far. Extremists on both sides don’t help, but I suppose at least they ensure the issues continue to be discussed.

          • PartisanZ

             /  September 21, 2018

            Cheers Gezza … I wasn’t aware of a settlement … Thanks.

  7. sorethumb

     /  September 21, 2018

    Funny how the left have their teeth into Maori issues. Catherine delahunty saw it as an opportunity to have “a renegotiation” and “a cooperative society” crops up. It’s as though “There’s No Way like the Maori Way”?

    • phantom snowflake

       /  September 21, 2018

      Here’s a Pro Tip: Should you venture out of your White Enclave, try wearing dark glasses; they make the brown faces far less obvious.

      • sorethumb

         /  September 21, 2018

        Here’s a reality tip for you. Many working class Maori are sullen and surly, a bad attitude. The negative narrative has gotten through. This has come from the ivory tower and worked it’s way down.

        • phantom snowflake

           /  September 21, 2018

          I’m going to call Bullshit on that. You’re most likely merely seeing your own reflection.

    • PartisanZ

       /  September 21, 2018

      And you, presumably, want “no negotiation” and “a combative society”?

      Well, that’s what we need eh? After all, we’re all competing here in the Darwinian economic jungle. There’s nothing else, is there?

      What you’re saying is “There’s no way like the English/Pakeha way” … Assimilation …

      • PartisanZ

         /  September 21, 2018

        … reply to sorethumb not p.s. …

      • Gerrit

         /  September 21, 2018

        Problem is that there are now not just Maori or English/Pakeha involved in New Zealand.

        Tauiwi includes many from the Pacific Islands, South East Asia, India, China plus non English Pakeha.

        All Tauiwi have to be taken into account. Just lumping Tauiwi in under the English/Pakeha cultural legal banner no longer works.

        New Zealand long ago left the English/Pakeha way behind and is pretty much multicultural.

        Maori are a significant 15% of the multicultural identity but not a majority.

        New Zealand has been continually re colonised and at each stage the treaty relevance diminishes.

        So while tokenish in regard Maori special seats in parliament remains, they are just that;

        Patronising Tokenism

        • PartisanZ

           /  September 21, 2018

          I predict that because of Te Tiriti o Waitangi Aotearoa New Zealand will eventually be Constitutionally first bicultural and then multicultural as well …

          I don’t see any reason why we can’t be both …

      • sorethumb

         /  September 21, 2018

        PZ A Darwinian economic jungle is how the system works for our betterment. That was the lesson the Soviets learnt: that without incentive people require coercion and that prices are signals. The qualified person (Lan Pham the fresh water ecologist) gets my votes over someone who wants the job based on ancestry.

        • PartisanZ

           /  September 21, 2018

          Disagree, I believe the cooperative and collaborative elements of it – it’s inherent sociality – are what work for our betterment DESPITE the imposition of a Darwinian model upon the economy by the pseudo-scientific snake-oil quasi-discipline of mainstream economics …

  8. sorethumb

     /  September 21, 2018

    These leftists are in Unions and pushing immigration

    • PDB

       /  September 21, 2018

      Would need quite a few crowbars to get her head out of the trough….she has no shame, likewise her supporters.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  September 21, 2018

      As expected, her Council has been stuffed with Lefty idiots by the likes of Maharey.

      Shameful.

    • Usual Lefty Pals whitewash. I take it I am allowed to use that last word, now that I no longer live in the UK Police State? Or is this business a sign that the same is on its way here?

      I do believe that that woman’s threat to withhold funding from any University group that dares to invite a guest speaker that she disapproves of, was almost worse than her initial ban on Brash based on a clear lie that there was a serious security risk.

      So, under the Lefty carpet it all goes. Fortunately, I suspect PG is right in thinking this has had a beneficial effect in waking ordinary folk up to the dangers of self-appointed, well-placed zealots trying to control everything we are allowed to say, hear or discuss.

      Luckily for those of us who have grasped the warnings of George Orwell et al, the subtleties of nuance appear not to have a place in the Lefty lexicon, even in high places of learning. If their intelligence matched their ideological hatreds we would not realise what they were up to till it was too late.

      • Gezza

         /  September 22, 2018

        Whitewash is a solution of lime and water or of whiting, size, and water, used for painting walls white. It has even also been used I think (in at least one book I remember reading as a kid) to paint fences – unless it was a misused term for white paint.

        I presume you are jesting suggesting that term might be banned in the UK because of the word “white”?

        I don’t think this has gone under the carpet. I think maybe the demographic attending the University will change, and that its reputation has been tarred with the brush of a safe spaces university where political correctness reigns & free speech does not. The type of student who only wants their worldview confirmed is the type of student it will attract.

  9. Tipene

     /  September 21, 2018

    These are all first-default responses. She will go, either by her own resignation, or one forced upon her – tick, tock, tick, tock……………………..

  10. sorethumb

     /  September 22, 2018