By: kaituna2003
29/09/2008
6:56 pm Yahoo! Profile:
kaituna2003 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
nadine i have 2 autistic nephew's who i love very much.
But i do think that is a stupid statement....Autism Party.
not a very wise comment... |
|
By: nadine.kramer@xtra.co.nz
29/09/2008
7:09 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nadine.kramer@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| That was my point, do you really think an aurtism party would be relistic. I was making a point that i dont beleive there should be a party that only certain people can vote for. THIS IS MY ISSUE. Im no good at getting people to read between my lines. |
|
By: nadine.kramer@xtra.co.nz
29/09/2008
7:12 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nadine.kramer@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| And you are wrong, i have never had and will never have a contract between the Maoris. This is where the whole thing falls down, and so mant people get upset. |
|
By: warrensson
29/09/2008
7:13 pm Yahoo! Profile:
warrensson Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
1. There is a Maori Party in parliament...if you don't realise that then you're not fit to join this debate.
What does one do when democracy fails you?
Are you capable of imagining what it is like to be a minority in the country of your ancestors?
Try it...try it honestly. |
|
By: nadine.kramer@xtra.co.nz
29/09/2008
7:16 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nadine.kramer@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Warren i hope that comment was not pointed at me. I am saying there can be what ever party you wont in there. As long as i have the right to vote, please read my first post before you make unfounded attacks. |
|
By: nadine.kramer@xtra.co.nz
29/09/2008
7:18 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nadine.kramer@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
And try living in a country where you are for ever blamed for a past wrong doing, that i had nothing to do with.
Try it...try it honestly. |
|
By: chris_phoenix_nz
29/09/2008
7:22 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chris_phoenix_nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Two key points here.
1. If the Maori seats were abolished then Maori would still have representation via the Maori party should they so choose to.
2. Maori can register on the General electoral role and on the Maori role. Non-Maori can only register for the General role, not the Maori role. That is pure racist.
That is why the Maori seats must go so that Maori get a fair and proportional representation in Parliament rather than over-representation by the presence of the Maori seats. |
|
By: chrisan555@xtra.co.nz
29/09/2008
7:32 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chrisan555@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
That is not racist - it is a recognition in these times that Maori have Maori seats to protect those interests as outlined under Article 2 of the Treaty
Maori standing in the general seats do not do this they must toe the party line which might not be interested in protecting.............. |
|
By: chris_phoenix_nz
29/09/2008
7:34 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chris_phoenix_nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Chrisan, regardless of the reason for the existance of the seats they are still racist if ONLY Maori can vote on them.
Definition of racism:
Prejudice or discrimination based on an individual's race; can be expressed individually or through institutional policies or practices. ...
It doesn't mention exclusions for government sanctioned racism. |
|
By: chrisan555@xtra.co.nz
29/09/2008
7:40 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chrisan555@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Anyway anyway the Govt sometime in the 1800's started the 4 Maori seats because Maori outnumbered the settlers and
the Govt was concerned that the majority (Maori) would win because they would vote their own in - sound familiar?
Obviously Maori were ONLY allowed to vote in those seats not the general seats which meant they had stuff all say in the running of the country of which they were the majority |
|
By: nadine.kramer@xtra.co.nz
29/09/2008
7:41 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nadine.kramer@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| If i am correct Article 2 of the treaty talks about land loss and only land loss. Are you telling me the whole reason behind the Maori party is land loss,to me that is very weak. I think the millions paid to maoris so far with more to come should be enough. Please have more depth to your argument. Artical 2 will not cut it. |
|
By: kaituna2003
29/09/2008
7:42 pm Yahoo! Profile:
kaituna2003 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Article 2 "Treaty of Waitangi" the main point.....if there was no treaty ,we would not be having this debate.
The signing in 1840 makes this possible , There are Maori from diffrent tribal area's that have claim's against the crown that differ from other iwi.
hence why we need maori seat's , .....I don't know any other party who can stand up for Maori issue's.
labour has been the closest , National the furthest...if such a word. |
|
By: nadine.kramer@xtra.co.nz
29/09/2008
7:49 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nadine.kramer@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Can you help me understand in which way they differ. I dont disagree there should be some compensation. But this was already in motion before the Maori party, i dont beleive there presence has alted this much. Other than land clames, what other reason is there to have these seats. |
|
By: chris_phoenix_nz
29/09/2008
7:51 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chris_phoenix_nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Wasn't the Maori party set up to represent Maori?
I hate people who use the ToW as their justification for nearly every racist pro-Maori policy in existance. Its a document signed by people who died over 150 years ago.
I'm not saying Maori weren't hard done at THAT time however those actions taken 150+ years ago cannot be used as the justification for all the so called "persecution" happening today.
The Maori fate is in their own hands. They can either live in the modern world where everyone works together and no one race is superior to any other. Or they can continue to pursue a path of trying to gain racial superiority which will just leave them in the dust as the rest of the world advances. |
|
By: chrisan555@xtra.co.nz
29/09/2008
7:54 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chrisan555@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| phoenix - The Maori position in this country is being the signees of a contract between themselves and the Crown - the Crown speaks for you and everyone else who is not of Maori - Maori are guaranteed their interests are being protected with the Maori seats because they are the ones working in the interests of Maori regards Article 2 - why is that so hard to understand? |
|
By: chrisan555@xtra.co.nz
29/09/2008
7:55 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chrisan555@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Nadine Kramer: have just realised you are very thick - try googling Article 2 Treaty Waitangi |
|
By: peterattray@xtra.co.nz
29/09/2008
8:00 pm Yahoo! Profile:
peterattray@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Because in Aticle 2 there is a but, a BIG BUT with a huge preemption were it could be said that all chief etc.. gave up their rights to the crown -the act or right of claiming or purchasing before or in preference to others. - bugger me law is a bugger |
|
By: kipahowey
29/09/2008
8:02 pm Yahoo! Profile:
kipahowey Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Are people aware how the Maori Seats originated.The version I read in the 1950s said they overcame a problem engendered by the British system which was based on the "franchise" holder.The head of the family "the land holder" held the "franchise".Maori land was communal.That would have made every Maori eligible to vote.Who do you think would have been the Government then,and possibly now.
I may have got it wrong,but I don't know why it stuck in my mind for so long.But if I'm right,why haven't I seen it referred to in all these years. |
|
By: nadine.kramer@xtra.co.nz
29/09/2008
8:07 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nadine.kramer@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Hi chrisan,
Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi was an unequivocal statement of the Crown's obligation to protect the interests of Maori:
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 as long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession ... (Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, First Schedule).
The Maori version of the Treaty is equally clear: the Crown guaranteed (ka wakarita ka wakaae) to Maori te tino rangatiratanga, the full authority over their lands until such time as they chose to dispose of them at an agreed price. There is in the Treaty, therefore, no assumption of a fictitious willing seller for the purpose of compulsory taking of Maori land by the Crown.
All About land. Where was i been thick. |
|
By: chrisan555@xtra.co.nz
29/09/2008
8:08 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chrisan555@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Phoenix - Art 2 of the Treaty is ongoing - Maori and the Crown's agents participate in discussions all over the country everyday whether it is about a polluted water source, a sewerage system too close to a wetland, the layout of a road, the list is endless |
|
By: chrisan555@xtra.co.nz
29/09/2008
8:10 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chrisan555@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| peterattray: Ditto to you regards googling |
|
By: nadine.kramer@xtra.co.nz
29/09/2008
8:10 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nadine.kramer@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| My point is again, if the Maori party is there mainly for this reason (artical 2)in your mind, you seem to refer to it so much. This was already taking place. |
|
By: chris_phoenix_nz
29/09/2008
8:12 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chris_phoenix_nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Chrisan,
So what your saying is a document signed 150 years ago and has no real relevance in the modern world is sufficient justification for racism? |
|
By: chrisan555@xtra.co.nz
29/09/2008
8:21 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chrisan555@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Nadine: there is a hell of a lot more than just land claims. 'fisheries and other properties' is huge - it's also about land protection from thieving councils, the right to continue to have the same unpolluted streams and rivers to fish from (many rural Maori do not have supermarket around the corner)that they have fished for hundreds of years - their right to not to have their rights taken in regards to the thermal springs they have used for hundreds of years...........read a few Waitangi reports and you might get the picture - I think a lot of it would be too hard for you to relate to actually |
|
By: wasullivan@xtra.co.nz
29/09/2008
8:22 pm Yahoo! Profile:
wasullivan@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Chrisan
Yes your right. The treaty is a contract between Maori and the Crown, A hastily drafted contract to suit the times in which it was written. No wonder the Crown couldnt stick to it just 30 years later, which has led to compensation payouts we are all dealing with today.
Firstly, in effect, the contract has already been made null and void by these indiscretions made by the Crown.
Secondly, the Crown no longer has the same powers or influence in NZ as it once did, (We can thank Labour for no longer having the house of lords etc) so in effect the contract is null and void due to the principle party (the Crown) no longer having the power it once did.
Thirdly, Most rules or laws that were made in the past, to suit the time of making them, are often edited, redrafted or completely done away with by every successive govt that steps into power, to suit the changing times, just as religions outfits change their spots too. Because if they didnt, they will loose favour with the general public who vote them in, or vote with their feet, The demography of NZ has changed beyond all recognition to what it was in 1840, so we must change with it, and except this is no longer about Maori Vs the Crown, its about Maori Vs every non Maori who are paying for past stuff ups not of our making. Most of us dont mind, so long as there is an end in sight to it all, so we can ALL move forward as one nation. Not one still divided over historical grievances. If the billions payed out in compensation, and special Maori culture education doesnt help Maori stand on their own feet, then nothing will. |
|
