Time and place though, this was done in such a way that it would disrupt a vote in Parliament, which is kinda one of the most important things they do.
Letting this go would have set a terrible precedent.
this was done in such a way that it would disrupt a vote in Parliament, which is kinda one of the most important things they do.
No shit? That was very clearly the point. However, that was the “time and place”, after already attempting to handle it in their oppressor’s preferred “time and place” they had to stand up and show how serious they were about opposing a new interpretation of law that would diminish their rights.
Letting it go would have set a terrible precedent, indeed. If they just “let it go” without protest they would have let their people lose their rights.
What they did was stand up for their people (what they are supposed to do) with the utmost conviction, instead of “letting it go”. That’s something that should be honored, not punished.
I know you meant “letting this go” as in not punishing their protest, but that’s completely ignoring the fact they fucked up first in pushing them to need to protest in the first place.
However, that was the “time and place”, after already attempting to handle it in their oppressor’s preferred “time and place” they had to stand up and show how serious they were about opposing a new interpretation of law that would diminish their rights.
In NZ Parliament, everyone gets to speak, often heatedly and repeatedly, then everyone gets to vote. She wanted to stop others from voting. That’s a big no in a democracy. Fascist tactics like this have no place in a democracy. Had she been allowed to prevent a democratic vote, what do you think happens the next time a left wing party tries to pass something contentious? And just to be clear, these are the three principles in the Bill:
———————————————
Principle 1
The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws,—
a) the best interests of everyone; and
b) in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
Principle 2
The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it.
The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it.
However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, subclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.
Principle 3
1) Everyone is equal before the law.
2) Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to—
a) the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and
b) the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights
———————————————-
So this woman was literally protesting against the introduction of racial equality and equal human rights protections in New Zealand. Her party is racially supremacist, and believe that Maori are a genetically superior race.
In September 2020, Ikaroa-Rāwhiti candidate Heather Te Au-Skipworth released the party’s sports policy which included establishing a national Māori sporting body and investing in Māori sporting scholarships and programs. She also stated "it is a known fact that Māori genetic makeup is stronger than others…”
Yikes. That is an awful statement. I had an initial reaction thinking “maybe they meant it in some way that doesn’t mean that” but I quickly realized how dumb that sounds.
Before I wrote my previous comment, I did some searching to double check what I thought I remembered about the situation, and I found only articles that portrayed the haka as a protest against a reduction of rights. Even after reading over what you quoted and more from the bill, I am unsure if it’s as good as the language makes it seem or if it does reduce rights. I’m really not qualified to determine that myself.
Before your edit, you linked wsws.org, which from what I can tell is pretty factual and they claim that public funds were given to corporations by the TPM.
So, I’ve now got a bunch of contradictory information and I’m not sure what to rely on. The genetics quote is definitely accurate though, and that’s a real tough one to make a good case that it didn’t mean “genetic superiority”, even though that’s not quite the words that were used. It just seems like such a contradictory stance in contrast to the other things I’ve seen about the party.
Thanks for the info. It seems like it’s gonna be tough for me to try to dig out the facts and figure out what to believe.
I think what helps is to remember that real life is messy. The New Zealand Maori party are unequivocally racist and arguably fascist, but they don’t represent all Maori. At the same time, some Maori still have legitimate grievances with the government which are yet to be settled. We can hold both of these facts in mind simultaneously. Of course it means we don’t have a clear caricature of the good and the bad guys, but history is usually not as black and white as that.
FYI I edited the wsws.org link because I don’t know if it’s reputable and sometimes people pick at the source instead of the content if it suits their narrative. Wikipedia is usually accepted. Plus it has citations.
The Maori party, or at least a few of their MPs, are brown supremacists, and say shit that would incite violence if a white person said them about Maori.
So what are you arguing for? More racial inequality? More structural racism? We overcome racism by stamping it out where we find it. We do not solve anything by making racism even worse. A most fundamental premise of any Western democracy is that we are all equal under the law, irrespective of our race. If you can’t agree on that then I suggest you take a long, hard look at your values.
You don’t stamp out racism but just one sidedly declaring racism is over all of a sudden, having done nothing to address the actual harm that has been caused.
Actually you do stop racism by stopping racism. It’s really that simple. I’ve lost patience with racists. All racists think their racism is justified. It’s not.
Acknowledging past racism is not racism. Pretending past racism is fixed, despite not doing anything to actually fix it, is not fixing racism. It is perpetuating and entrenching racism.
You can’t stop racism until you address the harm it’s causing and punishing the people who are causing it. Without inflicting punishment on the people who are carrying out racism it will never stop.
You can stop racism right this second, by not being racist. That’s it. All that is required is that you stop hating people because of their skin colour and treat them equally in law. That you would argue against that is horrifying.
If that were true then why oppose a Bill making everyone equal under the law? That’s clearly not true.
Because it’s not a law that make everyone equal under the law and it certainly would not compensate the people who were wronged and punish the wrongdoers.
Quote where I make those claims. You’re fighting ghosts.
When you say that this bill would end racism and make everybody equal.
Because it’s not a law that make everyone equal under the law and it certainly would not compensate the people who were wronged and punish the wrongdoers
I quoted the part where it makes everyone equal. If you disagree, quote the parts you think contradict that. The fact you’ve made so many comments lying about both my comments and the content of the bill suggest you’re just a liar. But prove me wrong homie. Quote where the bill makes everyone unequal in the law.
When you say that this bill would end racism and make everybody equal.
So you can’t, because I didn’t claim racism doesn’t exist. You keep lying because your defence of racism is so disgusting that you can’t bear to own it for one fucking comment. Just fuck off back to your KKK rally or wherever you guys come from.
This bill was not about racial equality. Do you actually think anybody with five brain cells to rub together believes that bullshit?
The treaty is the treaty. One signatory can’t unilaterally decide they don’t want to be bound by it anymore or that they get to decide how it’s interpreted.
I quoted the actual legislation which shows that it is clearly about racial equality.
The treaty is the treaty. One signatory can’t unilaterally decide they don’t want to be bound by it anymore or that they get to decide how it’s interpreted.
Are you arguing that the Treaty requires structural racism in New Zealand? If so, fuck the treaty. Racism has no place in a modern society. I should also inform you that, legally speaking, the Treaty is non-binding. Neither the government nor the people have any requirement to follow any part of it.
While the Treaty is widely seen as a constitutional document, its status in New Zealand law is less than settled. At the moment, Treaty rights can only be enforced in a court of law when a statute or an Act explicitly refers to the Treaty.
You quoted a tiny little bit, the overall bill was racist. It sought to strip rights away from the Maori and only the Maori in this country… The bill was structurally racist.
Which part? Be specific. Quote the parts you’re referring to.
Then why is it so widespread amongst ACT and NZ first and National voters?
Just because you think your political opponents are racist doesn’t give you the right to be as evil.
It’s the foundational document of our nation.
That’s not a good excuse for keeping institutional racism. Slavery used to be a foundational part of American society but they changed it.
Then why are the racist in this country trying to reinterpret it?
I don’t know who you’re referring to by in this case they’re clearly just stating they want legal equality.
Okay but what you are talking about is civil disobedience.
Civil disobedience is the nonviolent, conscious, and public refusal to obey certain laws, demands, or commands of a government or occupying power, usually as a form of protest. A key aspect is that the person accepts the legal consequences of their actions to highlight the perceived injustice of the law or policy they are opposing.
Prominent examples include:
Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March (against British colonial salt laws)
Martin Luther King Jr. and the U.S. Civil Rights Movement
Thoreau’s refusal to pay the poll tax, which he described in Civil Disobedience
The acceptance of punishment is what often distinguishes civil disobedience from other forms of lawbreaking.
Like others you mentioned these MPs will indeed take the punishment doled out by the Pakeha and like those other instances it will result in the public siding with them.
Which is exactly as I expected. I was trying to reassure the parent commenter that [regarding the punishment] things are proceeding just as the MPs wished for things to happen; that the punishment is being drawn intentionally and is something to be celebrated by their supporters; and I suppose that condemning Parliament for applying it is performative.
That’s bullshit. They would have obviously preferred not to be punished and prevent from participating in the parliament like they were elected to do.
This punishment will backfire on NACT though. It will point out how racist they are and how much they hate the indigenous people of this country. Their embrace of white supremacism and MAGA identity politics is in full display.
That’s bullshit. They would have obviously preferred not to be punished and prevent from participating in the parliament like they were elected to do.
Obviously. In that universe, they don’t perform the haka at all. They don’t need to protest. The haka was protest! Done illegally(*)! Knowingly and intentionally! That’s called fucking civil disobedience. THE PUNISHMENT IS PART OF THE PROTEST. Jesus fucking fuck, dude. In your mind, do you imagine they expected that maybe they wouldn’t get punished?? They KNEW, and that’s part of the fucking reason they DID IT. Jesus fuck.
If you only follow the rules of people in power, protest will be sidelined to where it causes no disruption. Which makes it very ineffective, which of course is the point.
Time and place though, this was done in such a way that it would disrupt a vote in Parliament, which is kinda one of the most important things they do.
Letting this go would have set a terrible precedent.
No shit? That was very clearly the point. However, that was the “time and place”, after already attempting to handle it in their oppressor’s preferred “time and place” they had to stand up and show how serious they were about opposing a new interpretation of law that would diminish their rights.
Letting it go would have set a terrible precedent, indeed. If they just “let it go” without protest they would have let their people lose their rights.
What they did was stand up for their people (what they are supposed to do) with the utmost conviction, instead of “letting it go”. That’s something that should be honored, not punished.
I know you meant “letting this go” as in not punishing their protest, but that’s completely ignoring the fact they fucked up first in pushing them to need to protest in the first place.
In NZ Parliament, everyone gets to speak, often heatedly and repeatedly, then everyone gets to vote. She wanted to stop others from voting. That’s a big no in a democracy. Fascist tactics like this have no place in a democracy. Had she been allowed to prevent a democratic vote, what do you think happens the next time a left wing party tries to pass something contentious? And just to be clear, these are the three principles in the Bill:
———————————————
Principle 1
The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws,—
a) the best interests of everyone; and
b) in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
Principle 2
The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it.
The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it.
However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, subclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.
Principle 3
1) Everyone is equal before the law.
2) Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to—
a) the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and
b) the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights
———————————————-
So this woman was literally protesting against the introduction of racial equality and equal human rights protections in New Zealand. Her party is racially supremacist, and believe that Maori are a genetically superior race.
Yikes. That is an awful statement. I had an initial reaction thinking “maybe they meant it in some way that doesn’t mean that” but I quickly realized how dumb that sounds.
Before I wrote my previous comment, I did some searching to double check what I thought I remembered about the situation, and I found only articles that portrayed the haka as a protest against a reduction of rights. Even after reading over what you quoted and more from the bill, I am unsure if it’s as good as the language makes it seem or if it does reduce rights. I’m really not qualified to determine that myself.
Before your edit, you linked wsws.org, which from what I can tell is pretty factual and they claim that public funds were given to corporations by the TPM.
So, I’ve now got a bunch of contradictory information and I’m not sure what to rely on. The genetics quote is definitely accurate though, and that’s a real tough one to make a good case that it didn’t mean “genetic superiority”, even though that’s not quite the words that were used. It just seems like such a contradictory stance in contrast to the other things I’ve seen about the party.
Thanks for the info. It seems like it’s gonna be tough for me to try to dig out the facts and figure out what to believe.
I think what helps is to remember that real life is messy. The New Zealand Maori party are unequivocally racist and arguably fascist, but they don’t represent all Maori. At the same time, some Maori still have legitimate grievances with the government which are yet to be settled. We can hold both of these facts in mind simultaneously. Of course it means we don’t have a clear caricature of the good and the bad guys, but history is usually not as black and white as that.
FYI I edited the wsws.org link because I don’t know if it’s reputable and sometimes people pick at the source instead of the content if it suits their narrative. Wikipedia is usually accepted. Plus it has citations.
The Maori party, or at least a few of their MPs, are brown supremacists, and say shit that would incite violence if a white person said them about Maori.
They are much less racist than ACT or NZ first though. I mean I don’t know how it would be possible to be more racist than them in this country.
Lol fuck off. Writing down “actually we’ve unilaterally decided everyone is equal now” after decades of theft and oppression is not equality.
How rich to be accusing others of fascism when the party that pushes this is so strongly linked to facism and regression across the world.
So what are you arguing for? More racial inequality? More structural racism? We overcome racism by stamping it out where we find it. We do not solve anything by making racism even worse. A most fundamental premise of any Western democracy is that we are all equal under the law, irrespective of our race. If you can’t agree on that then I suggest you take a long, hard look at your values.
You don’t stamp out racism but just one sidedly declaring racism is over all of a sudden, having done nothing to address the actual harm that has been caused.
Actually you do stop racism by stopping racism. It’s really that simple. I’ve lost patience with racists. All racists think their racism is justified. It’s not.
Acknowledging past racism is not racism. Pretending past racism is fixed, despite not doing anything to actually fix it, is not fixing racism. It is perpetuating and entrenching racism.
No one claimed acknowledging past racism is racism. It’s the racism I’m claiming is racist. If you don’t support racial equality, you are racist.
You can’t stop racism until you address the harm it’s causing and punishing the people who are causing it. Without inflicting punishment on the people who are carrying out racism it will never stop.
You can stop racism right this second, by not being racist. That’s it. All that is required is that you stop hating people because of their skin colour and treat them equally in law. That you would argue against that is horrifying.
We are not all equal under the law though. Why are you pretending there is no racism and everybody is on equal ground and we can just ignore race?
That’s nuts.
If that were true then why oppose a Bill making everyone equal under the law? That’s clearly not true.
Quote where I make those claims. You’re fighting ghosts.
Because it’s not a law that make everyone equal under the law and it certainly would not compensate the people who were wronged and punish the wrongdoers.
When you say that this bill would end racism and make everybody equal.
I quoted the part where it makes everyone equal. If you disagree, quote the parts you think contradict that. The fact you’ve made so many comments lying about both my comments and the content of the bill suggest you’re just a liar. But prove me wrong homie. Quote where the bill makes everyone unequal in the law.
So you can’t, because I didn’t claim racism doesn’t exist. You keep lying because your defence of racism is so disgusting that you can’t bear to own it for one fucking comment. Just fuck off back to your KKK rally or wherever you guys come from.
This bill was not about racial equality. Do you actually think anybody with five brain cells to rub together believes that bullshit?
The treaty is the treaty. One signatory can’t unilaterally decide they don’t want to be bound by it anymore or that they get to decide how it’s interpreted.
I quoted the actual legislation which shows that it is clearly about racial equality.
Are you arguing that the Treaty requires structural racism in New Zealand? If so, fuck the treaty. Racism has no place in a modern society. I should also inform you that, legally speaking, the Treaty is non-binding. Neither the government nor the people have any requirement to follow any part of it.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/learn-about-the-justice-system/how-the-justice-system-works/the-basis-for-all-law/treaty-of-waitangi/#%3A~%3Atext=The+Treaty+of+Waitangi+was%2Cby+our+government\\)%20and%20M%C4%81ori.
You quoted a tiny little bit, the overall bill was racist. It sought to strip rights away from the Maori and only the Maori in this country.
The bill was structurally racist.
Then why is it so widespread amongst ACT and NZ first and National voters?
It’s the foundational document of our nation.
Then why are the racist in this country trying to reinterpret it?
Which part? Be specific. Quote the parts you’re referring to.
Just because you think your political opponents are racist doesn’t give you the right to be as evil.
That’s not a good excuse for keeping institutional racism. Slavery used to be a foundational part of American society but they changed it.
I don’t know who you’re referring to by in this case they’re clearly just stating they want legal equality.
The bill would increase institutional racism.
fuck america.
I am talking about you and the rest of the white supremacist neo nazis who are still crying because their white supremacist bill didn’t pass.
Thank you for explaining this in a way I don’t have the patience for.
Okay but what you are talking about is civil disobedience.
Civil disobedience is the nonviolent, conscious, and public refusal to obey certain laws, demands, or commands of a government or occupying power, usually as a form of protest. A key aspect is that the person accepts the legal consequences of their actions to highlight the perceived injustice of the law or policy they are opposing.
Prominent examples include:
Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March (against British colonial salt laws)
Martin Luther King Jr. and the U.S. Civil Rights Movement
Thoreau’s refusal to pay the poll tax, which he described in Civil Disobedience
The acceptance of punishment is what often distinguishes civil disobedience from other forms of lawbreaking.
Like others you mentioned these MPs will indeed take the punishment doled out by the Pakeha and like those other instances it will result in the public siding with them.
Which is exactly as I expected. I was trying to reassure the parent commenter that [regarding the punishment] things are proceeding just as the MPs wished for things to happen; that the punishment is being drawn intentionally and is something to be celebrated by their supporters; and I suppose that condemning Parliament for applying it is performative.
That’s bullshit. They would have obviously preferred not to be punished and prevent from participating in the parliament like they were elected to do.
This punishment will backfire on NACT though. It will point out how racist they are and how much they hate the indigenous people of this country. Their embrace of white supremacism and MAGA identity politics is in full display.
Obviously. In that universe, they don’t perform the haka at all. They don’t need to protest. The haka was protest! Done illegally(*)! Knowingly and intentionally! That’s called fucking civil disobedience. THE PUNISHMENT IS PART OF THE PROTEST. Jesus fucking fuck, dude. In your mind, do you imagine they expected that maybe they wouldn’t get punished?? They KNEW, and that’s part of the fucking reason they DID IT. Jesus fuck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
In that universe they would perform the Haka and stay in Parliament.
Oh no. She broke decorum. How dare she! I guess to you guys decorum is more important than lives and suffering of actual real human beings.
If you only follow the rules of people in power, protest will be sidelined to where it causes no disruption. Which makes it very ineffective, which of course is the point.