Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
To be honest, as someone who now works a bit in the 'Treaty industry', I think it's pure ignorance that's allowing the less, erm, 'enlightened' people to hold sway over this discourse.
Pretty much. The redneck position falls apart the moment you look at the law, or actual history.
Is learning about this at school completely beyond our education system, or something?
I have no idea about the present, but it certainly was in the past. And the vast majority of New Zealanders were educated in that era of ignorance, and never bothered to learn anything more.
Of course, getting New Zealand kids to learn their real history would be "social engineering"...
-
Tom: that's what the previous government did. Worked out well, didn't it?
The problem you fail to grasp is that no matter how many times you stamp your foot and say "we legislate", "this is it", "no more", "this is final", that doesn't make the issue go away. The only thing that makes it go away is justice. And as we've seen over Treaty settlements, Maori are willing to wait a long, long time for that to happen, making their case again and again for decades until justice prevails.
Repeating the mistake of 2005 means a repeat of the solution of 2005: relitigation through the electoral system. Except that having been screwed once, the Maori Party won't be nearly as accomodating next time...
-
Do we really suck that much?
Murray McCully and Crosby-Textor think enough of us do to be worth pandering to. Personally, I prefer the Belgian solution: nothing for racists.
-
Wouldn't it have been better for the initial reactionary racist response had been "this is an outrage ... dog-whistle ... human whistle ... Kiwi ... beaches ... summer BBQs ... we'll appeal" instead of "this is an outrage ... we legislate".
Yes. But that's just an example of slower government is better government because it gives us time to stop and think.
(Yet another reason to hate urgency).
-
No. And yet, even you were happy for the government to "try and steer" the Maori Land Court on the issue (when it looked like that might be the path)
I plead insufficient cynicism. And I've learned my lesson. Now I'd never be stupid enough to expect good faith from the government on anything.
As for letting it go to court like a private claim, having delved into this possibility, I think we've got very little to fear from it. But it is more likely that the government will negotiate a national-level settlement to avoid the hassle of court cases.
...or at least, they would if they were operating in good faith. My inner cynic is meanwhile pointing out that the same rednecks who pushed National to appeal to racists for votes in 2003-7 (and just a few weeks ago over the RWC) will be seeing the same possibilities, and will be trying to frustrate any solution so as to force a vote-winning Maori-Party walkout. And we all lose then.
-
And lost. Even Port Marlborough dropped its appeal to the Privy Council.
The reason being that the Privy Council has historically been strongly supportive of aboriginal title, and they would have no trouble at all endorsing the decision to overturn the incorrect historical precedent of 90 Mile Beach (which was considered dodgy even at the time).
-
Naive as I am, I'm cautious optimistic that it will be the case because nobody has anything to win by a repeat of the last go round.
As Tom has pointed out (and Chris Trotter has urged), Labour does. I am really, really hoping they are bigger than that.
-
No, there will be legislation. Even the Greens think that should be the case.
And the reason why is that, shorn of the objectionable denial of absolute ownership, the existing framework for regulating customary rights isn't too bad a response to interests that fall short of ownership; if it didn't exist, the courts would have to invent it. Its not the full esponse, but its a useful part of it.
-
Were they poorly advised, or did they ignore their advice? Perhaps we'll never know.
Thanks to the OIA, we know a little. The initial advice talked up the "risk" to the petroleum industry and of a chilling effect on land reclaimation, and laid out the possible solutions (ranging from "leave it to the courts" to "nuke the site from orbit"). Even so, the risks identified did not justify the response; it was a political decision on the part of Labour to pander to the rednecks - not the fault of their advisors.
-
Doesn't make it any less shit. I just feel like a lot, perhaps most of middle NZ has bought into this crap, and we need someone who will shake them out of it.
Perhaps when the police start taking their DNA for traffic offences. But IIRC they're already doing that, pulling over teenagers for traffic stops then lying to them to get a "voluntary" sample.
The law shits all over the BORA. national's own law-whore advised against passing it. Parliament didn't care. Please, can I have an enforceable BORA, rather than letting the "tough on crime" pricks run rampant?