Wednesday 31 January 2024

Intransigent Minorities.

No Compromise! The price of not keeping faith with the voters can be high. The Coalition Government would be wise to learn from the Left’s more recent mistakes. The most obvious of which is its truly bizarre belief that intransigent minorities will not be electorally punished for spitting in the face of the majority.

WHEN THE UNITED KINGDOM next goes to the polls, the Scottish National Party (SNP) will struggle to retain office. Currently, the Labour Party has a better-than-even chance of reclaiming its crown as Scotland’s electoral darling. After 17 years as the dominant force in Scottish politics, the SNP is running neck-and-neck with Labour. The reason: it allowed itself to get seriously out of step with Scotland’s voters.

The Scots are a well-educated and progressive people, but they drew the line at backing a premier, and a party, that saw nothing wrong with incarcerating a convicted rapist in Cornton Vale women’s prison on the grounds that she had subsequently self-identified as a woman.

Though the Premier, Nicola Sturgeon, responding to public outrage, removed the rapist, Isla Bryson, from Cornton Vale, the damage was done. According to The Guardian, Sturgeon’s predecessor (and political mentor) Alex Salmond accused her of “throwing away” the hope of Scottish independence (the SNP’s raison d’être) for the sake of controversial gender recognition reforms.

Things went from bad to worse for the SNP when, following Sturgeon’s resignation, she and her husband became the focus of a police investigation, and the SNP membership opted to reject the socially conservative candidate for Premier, Kate Forbes, in favour of the woke Humza Yousaf.

One instance of challenging the voters’ values might be forgiven – but two? It may, or may not, be relevant that the SNP’s fall from grace occurred while it was in coalition with the Scottish Greens.

Why allow a party currently polling at around 2-3 percent push you into backing reforms that most voters do not support? Why risk incurring the wrath of the electorate by allowing the perception to grow that the tail is wagging the dog? These questions are not restricted to the Scottish situation. There are people here in New Zealand asking very similar questions in relation to Act’s Treaty Principles Bill.

Not the least of these inquirers is Dame Anne Salmond who, in an uncharacteristically tetchy post for the Newsroom website, observes: “The process surrounding the Treaty Principles bill is a farce. With 8.6 percent of the vote at the last election, Act has no democratic mandate to advance a referendum on Te Tiriti.”

A perplexing observation which, on its face, suggests that even to “advance” the idea of a referendum (to resolve an otherwise irresolvable public issue) a political party must first secure 50 percent +1 of the Party Vote.

As National Party gadfly, Liam Hehir, observed on X (formerly Twitter) :

“Does Dame Anne Salmond have self-awareness enough to realise she is arguing against MMP and in favour of FPP? Is there an acknowledgement that you can’t construct a system where the Greens and TPM are allowed to ‘distort’ things but NZF and ACT are not?”

We shall come back to Hehir’s question presently. But, before we do, the pithy response of lawyer, and all round go-to guy on electoral matters, Graeme Edgeler, to Dame Anne’s commentary is worth citing:

“It seems like Anne Salmond is proposing a 15% threshold for MMP?”

Why 15 percent? Because, ever since the introduction of MMP 28 years ago, no minor party has ever secured more than 13.35 percent of the Party Vote (NZ First in 1996.) Hence Hehir’s quip about Dame Anne calling for the reintroduction of the First-Past-The-Post electoral system.

But, a return to the old system would not resolve the problem that lies at the heart of Dame Anne’s rather intemperate post. This, stripped of all its distracting rhetoric, boils down to one, key, question: how does one prevent the wrong sort of people, by which, presumably, Dame Anne means “right-wing” sort of people, from gaining access to the most important platform in the land – the House of Representatives?

The answer, as Hehir points out in his tweet, is that you can’t – not without abandoning democracy altogether. If left-wing voters, and Dames, are willing to accept the right of a party receiving 11.6 percent of the Party Vote, let alone one attracting just 3.08 percent, to materially shape the policy agenda of a Labour-led coalition government, then they must also accept the reality of Act and NZ First shaping the policy agenda of Christopher Luxon’s National Party-led coalition.

The problem is: “abandoning democracy” is exactly what a growing proportion of what passes for the Left in 2024 wants to do. Only by getting rid of democracy’s open-ended promises can the “correct” ideas be assured of winning through. Hence, the woke majority of the SNP’s membership’s refusal to acknowledge that the gender recognition reforms that they and the Scottish Greens were advancing would only end up sending a majority of Scottish voters in the direction of less radical electoral alternatives.

We see the same ideological intransigence at work within the American Left. The radical wing of the Democratic Party simply refuses to accept that a clear majority of Americans have grown alarmed and dismayed at the number of migrants making their way into the United States. No matter how damaging their opposition to closing the US-Mexican border might be to the Democratic Party’s electoral fortunes: no matter how many voters the Left’s uncompromising zealotry is driving into the wide-open arms of Donald Trump; their ideologically-driven position is correct – and must prevail.

That same unshakable conviction that they are right, and must prevail, is especially evident in the New Zealand Left’s insistence that the Treaty principles identified by Te Iwi Māori, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Judiciary, the Public Service and Academia are the only ones that count. That a majority of the population might feel uncomfortable with the current, “official”, interpretation of Te Tiriti simply does not signify. Under no circumstances can the ill-informed views of poorly-educated (deplorable?) New Zealanders be permitted to decide the issue.

Hence, the demands from left-wing (and even some right-wing) political commentators for Luxon and the National Party to put their feet down and insist that the Treaty Principles Bill not proceed. Presumably, they are of the view that Act’s David Seymour, and NZ First’s Winston Peters, lack the grit to challenge Luxon. Such people are guilty of, to paraphrase J.R.R. Tolkien, weighing all things to a nicety in the scales of their own malice. They forget that the Right, no less than the “Left”, can, at need, be impressively intransigent.

The opponents of the Treaty Principles Bill are also guilty of forgetting just how adroit a parliamentarian Seymour has already proved himself to be. His End of Life Choice legislation – the ultimate success of which few predicted at the time of the bill’s introduction – is now the law of the land.

Nor should it be assumed that it is only Act’s 8.6 percent of the electorate that are committed to seeing his bill proceed all the way to a referendum. In Saturday’s (27/1/24) edition of the NZ Herald a group calling itself “Democracy Action” inserted a full-page advertisement headed “We Stand With You”, which urged Luxon, Peters and Seymour to be steadfast in the defence of both their electoral mandate and the democratic process. Formed by Aucklanders Lee and Susan Short, Democracy Action has long had the official interpretation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in its sights. The wealthy couple insist they are not alone.

Nicola Sturgeon and the SDP discovered, to their cost, just how high the price of not keeping faith with one’s voters can be. The Coalition Government would be wise to learn from the Left’s mistakes. The most obvious of which is its truly bizarre belief that intransigent minorities will not be electorally punished for spitting in the face of the majority.

This essay was originally posted on the website on Monday, 29 January 2024.


Philip said...

Hi Chris, I just wanted to thank you for your stances on free speech and the Treaty Principles Bill. I know you will be copping a lot of flack from previous friends of yours on the Left (one that springs to mind is Martyn Bradbury who I see is now not posting your articles) but your integrity shines through. You are willing to stand up for your beliefs in a well-reasoned manner. I regularly disagree with your stances on many things but I always respect your willingness to put them forward for public comment and I appreciate the opportunity it provides me to consider another point of view (I am conservative/right leaning).
It will be interesting to see how the Treaty principles discussion pans out and I am hopeful that it will not lead to violence despite the rhetoric of some. There was a really good quote from Vivek Ramaswamy recently which I think may highlight something that has bothered me for some time around the identify politics aspect of promoting one race over another:
"And I think the use of these racial and gender quota systems, I think have actually created a new form of racism in the United States that otherwise would not have existed. It’s sad to me. I mean, I’ve hired, not because I was thinking about it consciously, plenty of Black women in different positions of authority in this campaign or other companies or whatever. And I can tell you it saddens me when people look at somebody who I hired on the basis of merit and say that they only got that job because of their race or gender, that doesn’t do anybody a favor. And so I think if we restore true meritocracy in this country and embrace true diversity of thought, chances are we’re actually going to have a bunch of different shades of melanin and a range of genders in different positions. But let it be not the goal, let it just be a byproduct of actually selecting for people who are the best person for the job, and especially in a university setting, diversity viewpoints as well. That’s what I’ll say."

I feel the attempts to place someone in a position due to their race (or chosen identity) simply lowers the esteem that that race is held in and promotes further racism. It reflects poorly on those of that race who are succeeding on their own merits by tarring them with the same brush (just there cause they're a Maori, or just there cause they're a woman).
I would be interested in comments from others especially those who are Maori as to how they feel to be constantly told their race is underperforming, or they only got to their position because of their colour not their character. Is it harmful?

The Barron said...

I will repeat what I have previously written. The Treaty is a bilateral agreement with standing in national and international law. The Tauiwi / Crown side of the agreement has built decades of jurisprudence around the Treaty, which has included the principles. This is developed law. The principles are derivative from the Treaty document. This means that the legal system has concluded that the principles are within the essence of the body of the document. This has been from collating and considering the understandings at the time of signing of both sides (but especially that of the ceding party), the directives to Hobson and Busby, international jurisprudence, British common law, customary rights and tikanga Maori.

The Tangata Whenua side of te Tiriti has its own interpretations and these are tested by the judiciary. The Wiatangi Tribunal acts as a body of enquiry, in which both Crown and Iwi Maori make submission to an expert panel, which considers the parties views and then makes recommendations to the Crown having put those submissions through the various expertise (legal, historical and cultural) and put against jurisprudence. The Parliament may or may not accept or act on those recommendation.

What Seymore is advocating is that the law is ignored, the bilateral nature of the treaty is ignored and expertise is ignored. More importantly still, Maori as the co-signatory is denied that status. I have said before, if the legal authorities in the nation consider the jurisprudence and conclude that partnership is a principle of the Treaty or that consultation on issues affecting te Iwi Maori is a requirement, then if Parliament is to say the opposite, then Parliament is saying that it is outside and above the law.

Such would be unprecedented and clearly would be the government of NZ breaking a bilateral agreement and breaking both national and international law. This would be clearly the government acting to legally disadvantage and discriminate against the established legal rights of an ethnic sector of NZ. We would no longer be within the family of nations in which human rights are universal.

The very Bill should have been struck down by National as the lead party in Her Majesty's government. It is Parliamentary over-reach of the worst type and is simply designed for a party of 8.6 percent to create chaos. We should note the Rwanda legislation in Britain in which Parliament seeks to nullify courts function in a democratic state. The Tories were shown that the government is not above the law, and have then sought to legislate away legal oversight. This is akin to Donald Trump's 'absolute immunity' argument in which the right to extra-judicial execution of political rivals is advocated.

Chris states - 'the New Zealand Left’s insistence that the Treaty principles identified by Te Iwi Māori, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Judiciary, the Public Service and Academia are the only ones that count. That a majority of the population might feel uncomfortable with the current, “official”, interpretation of Te Tiriti simply does not signify.'

It is strange Chris puts official in inverted commas. This is to delegitimize the fact this is based on legal jurisprudence and tested against this. As such, if the interpretation is considered wrong, all New Zealanders have the right and the ability to mount a legal challenge. That Seymore and his well financed ilk don't do this is evident that the Courts have not erred in interpretation. as stated above, the interpretation is as to the body of the Treaty and deriving principles as working guidelines. Do not fall for the misrepresentation that it is not the Treaty only the principles being attacked, the principles do not exist in isolation from legal understanding of the Treaty.

Max Ritchie said...

A referendum would decide it. What’s the problem, Dame Anne?

Anonymous said...

On this matter, if no other, you really do need to abandon the left-right political labels Chris. How about a racist-humanist continuum?

Anonymous said...

Chris, you were one of the few outspoken critics of the last Labour Government's slippery agenda on race based policy and constitutional reform. Some journalists seem to be blindsided by ACT's proposals. I am not sure if ACT is using the right tools but there has to be an open and transparent discussion on the future constitutional direction of the country.

New view said...

Some interesting observations In Chris’s article. Dame Salmond’s 15% threshold seems a bit tough to me because as suggested you may as well go back to FPP. The political landscape seemed far simpler back then, however what we have now is colourful and full of opportunities for those with alternative views. I personally think it’s too easy and somewhere around 8% would only give birth to serious MMP contenders. Act would have just scraped in and I believe the Greens only did so well because they fed off disillusioned labour voters. Act and its policies achieved 9% of the party vote so very much a minority party trying to make a big splash in wanting a referendum on the Treaty. Luxon won’t be led by the nose on this and he is treading a fine line because we really don’t know public opinion. Of course Maori would be predominantly against the bill but not all. The same with Labour voters who will in my opinion be more interested in cost of living and other social issues. Act follower's annoyed if Luxon doesn’t proceed won’t punish Seymour and in my opinion Nat voters will be mostly for it along with NZ first but not all. The safety valve is the public submissions. If the general public are for this bill in big numbers and Luxon doesn’t proceed to keep the peace with Maori, he could find himself hit in the polls. If those against the bill dominate or even the opinion for or against, it will be easy for Luxon not to proceed. Those against this bill need to stop the racism rhetoric and ask themselves what they fear. If they fear loosing an advantage the present interpretation of the Treaty gives them, they have to discuss why they should have that advantage. Seymour has been up front with his agenda and the other Coalition members have agreed to let him have his say. If the process is derailed by emotional misinformation where would that leave democracy.

David George said...

Those getting wound up about ACT's relatively modest 8.6% of the vote should note that it's eleven seats in parliament is almost 10% of the seats. Which is also the qualifying percentage for a citizens initiated referendum.

I don't know if a CIR is at all likely but the claim that a referendum, or even a discussion about the treaty principles, is racist, divisive etc and that everyone should just STFU is so obviously wrong I don't know how they can say it with a straight face. Practice I suppose.

Debbie Packer & Co think claiming Maori racial supremacy and banging on about de-colonisation is OK though apparently.

LittleKeith said...

Yes, the bulk of our mainstream media are simply aghast that Act's treaty policy is even being allowed to carry on. Just as they are of anyone who dares question their climate change beliefs. Their superiority and ego will not tolerate any diversity, ironically. No wonder they're in decline!

Then there is a hidden population who also will not speak out against the treaty's current sorry state of affairs for fear of being labelled "racist", the woke lefts go to, to stamp out questioning, but will most definitely support Seymour's policy. And Luxon ought to know that.

The Barron said...

My point above is well articulated by Ken Clarke in the House of Lords. Speaking to the peers on the Tory's Rwanda Bill, Clarke is adamant that Parliament should not be legislating a question of fact. The courts found that Rwanda is unsafe, the government has introduced a Bill that says Rwanda is safe. This is a point of finding of fact by the courts. Clarke rightly points out that this is elected dictatorship. It would mean that the House could rule a cat is a dog, black is white, or more importantly someone found innocent in the courts may be found guilty by a populous Parliament. Th expertise of the courts determines fact and no-one is above the law - not even the Commons.

In regard to the Treaty principles, the courts in NZ have determined that the Treaty of Waitangi is a commitment towards partnership and consultation. This is a finding of fact. It is not the role of the government to re-determine findings of fact. This places the government above and outside of the law.

If we look to the Magna Carta - 'To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice' (Clause 40, Magna Carta), Maori is denied the right to justice by the Crown as legal issue of interpretation within national and international law is threatened to be legislated away. Parliamentary democracy has suspended the writ of habeas corpus during emergencies, what no democracy has done is not legislate that habeas corpus is no longer the Latin for “show me the body” and does not mean protection against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment. That would be an absurd abuse within a civil society. Such is Seymore's Bill.

LittleKeith said...

Very good point raised about the American left. There is no way a character like Trump could have a hope of winning again, but he has more than a good chance of victory all because the left have become so dictatorial and inflexible to criticism outside their groupthink they are repellent to voters, no matter how badly their warped policies backfire. They are authoritarian. Trump is definitely not the woke academic left and there's no pretence going on that is brand is a front, he's his own man.

The way California is going, the leading light in left woke thinking, the rest of the voting population fear going down that path so they'll vote for the devil himself, and they will do just that, if they can avoid a San Francisco outcome. Or a Minnesota, Portland or New York. They're not asking for much, just less extreme more tempered policy.

Honestly, how dumb is the almost religious righteousness of the woke left nowadays? I'm guessing it was even too much for James Shaw!

CXH said...

So the good Dame suggests that Act should be ignored for only getting 8.6%, yet feels the maori party should be heeded and obeyed.

So what level of support did they get? The old do as I say, not as I do attitude.

Michael Johnston said...

"What Seymore is advocating is that the law is ignored, the bilateral nature of the treaty is ignored and expertise is ignored."

I disagree. I think what Seymour is advocating, is putting the question of what the Treaty means to those who must be the ultimate arbiters of the law in a democracy - the people. A referendum is a perfectly legitimate method of addressing constitutional questions. You might well consider Seymour's proposal to be unwise, but it certainly does not ignore the law. Again, in a democracy, there must be a mechanism to ensure that the people are not prisoners of decisions made by courts in the past. A referendum is one such mechanism.

Tom Hunter said...

It would mean that the House could rule a cat is a dog, black is white,....

A man is a woman... Which will have The Barron's full support. It might even be a "finding of fact" in the courts as well.

Which will still not make it right.

You can talk about International law and Treaty law all you like but if the majority of the population feels that it is getting screwed over by a thin crust of elitists then they and their ideas are going to be overthrown, irrespective of all the above and certainly irrespective of their self regard as The Experts.

Tom Hunter said...

The Tauiwi / Crown side of the agreement has built decades of jurisprudence around the Treaty, which has included the principles. This is developed law. The principles are derivative from the Treaty document. This means that the legal system has concluded that the principles are within the essence of the body of the document. This has been from collating and considering the understandings at the time of signing of both sides (but especially that of the ceding party), the directives to Hobson and Busby, international jurisprudence, British common law, customary rights and tikanga Maori.

And yet to this day all that effort has been unable to clearly define what these principles are in the way that a bill of rights or a constitution is required to do. When asked, all we get is a repetition of the above.

And in fact, for all of this stuff about the understandings at the time, plus the rest, we now have increasing numbers of tikanga lawyers and "experts" who are convinced that the chiefs never yielded sovereignty and are arguing so in their preferred arenas of academia and the courts away from the glare of public scrutiny. The usual private club that has always been here in NZ and which the Left often complained about - right up until they got control.

Elites are never satisfied with the power and possessions they have. In this case I think we can look forward to NZ being owned by vast Maori Trusts and companies, with both non-chiefly Maori and every other race working as indentured servants.

There may be some traditional Class Lefties who will object but it will be too late - at least until the people revolt, and against International Treaties and all.

Anonymous said...

I join with Philip in thanking you, Chris,for your stout defence of free speech and democracy. Please keep it up. If you are losing "friends" on the "Left" because of it, were they ever really true friends, or ever really and truely left?

But that said, the one thing I disagree with is your referring to the convicted rapist in Scotland as "Isla Bryson" and referring to him as "she". He's a male, with a penis. Referring to "her penis" in court testimony is as mad as locking him up in a women's prison. He had no history of gender dysphoria noticeable to his parents, or to his estranged wife. Rather than suffering ROGD (Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria) he appeared to suffer SOGD (Sentencing Onset Gender Dysphoria). Cynically gaming the system to get an easier "lag", with a bonus of being able to rape women literally unable to escape? Surely not! Why could the voters not sympathize with the obvious "kindness" of the SNP?

Part of the "woke" ideology (I dislike the word, but lack a better, brief, descriptor) is what has been summed up as "luxury beliefs". That is, expressing full support for things that will never adversely affect you personally. Like making farming more difficult, and expensive, in the name of protecting the environment. Who cares if it creates shortages, cuts choices, and raises prices for the proles at McDonalds and the supermarket? As long as you can still afford the premium prices for organics at the farmers market, all is well. (And if angry farmers take to tractorcades, it's all just a far right plot, nothing to do with any possible reasonable objections to policies adversely affecting them).

Locking men up in women's prisons is one belief. The snobby elite women, like Nicola Sturgeon, who advocate for it are 100 % sure it will never affect them, or any women in their peer group. If poetic justice actually existed, Nicola Sturgeon would get jail time, and find her new cellmate is "Isla Bryson". Nicola Sturgeon's confidence such a thing could never happen to her is probably fully justified.

Finally, I wonder if Nicola Sturgeon, Golriz Gharhaman, and Kiritapu Allan, collectively or separately, can add a new, literal meaning to the term "conviction politician"?

David George said...

Tell me, if neither the elected government, nor the people, can democratically challenge or interpret, or even question, the sanctified "principles" are we at the mercy, in perpetuity, of the courts or grudging concessions from "the chiefs"? How does that square with commitments to the Universal Human Rights declaration? Just ignore it? Sounds more than a bit tyrannical.

Obviously law by public consensus has some serious shortcomings (the horrors of Naziism the best know example) so underlying and overlaying everything there must be a priority, a transcendent morality. If the status quo interpretation of the treaty means that the most basic moral value, equality, is desecrated then there's something seriously wrong.

David Stone said...

It would be good to understand clearly what those opposing Act's wish to clarify and define the principles to mean would like them to mean . If we could all know where we are going it might not be so unsettling, But it seems as if the "principles " have the capacity to move once the concept is established , from one position to the next in an unending progression toward an aparthide regime where one race controls the country 's resources and law and the other (s) have no rights.

David George said...

I've struggled to understand the motivations for the outrageous demands from the Maori party and the like, their divisive, incendiary, insulting and offensive nature. Is it a fight for justice or something else?

Perhaps this explains a lot of it:

"You don't understand the narcissistic/psychopathic.
They feel that anyone stupid enough to fall prey to their machinations deserves what they get"
Jordan Peterson.

Believe, or concede to, their hate and lies at your peril IOW

The Barron said...

The point is Michael that what is proposed to change is a legal finding of fact. The judiciary have concluded that when examined against jurisprudence, principles such as partnership and construction must be legally derived from the Crown commitment to the body of te Tiriti. It does ot matter if 50% + 1 of the electorate disagree, a finding of fact does not alter.

The Barron said...

Tommy H 10.40
This highlights that the real issue is that you and others feel the control and privilege in NZ society is being challenged. An insecurity regarding the ability to control others position in society and their identity. It should be noted tht my personal position on gendered identity is far more nuanced. All cultures over time have had liminal gendered identities which have been incorporated within the society. Any research and anthropologist shows this. The accommodation legally and socially of the right to identify liminal gendered identities has challenged some and they have misused their own power position to repress vulnerable people because of their own insecurities as to their ability to control social change. Your comments then goes on to dismiss expertise, which is a concession to the lack of arguable and tested fact.

Tommy H 10.48
Strange. The law is by its very nature public. It can be challenged to the Supreme Court. It considers all issues pertaining to any case before it. Most objecting in this blog are those usually advocating 'law and order', unless the rulings do not suit them (te Tiriti, vaccination programs etc.). The Treaty has never been frozen in time and there is no sustainable argument that it still does not have on-going effect, therefore a legal standing to be put against the development of jurisprudence. While Treaty settlements have allowed some te Iwi to build assets by effective trading, the bulk of internationally owned and run companies in NZ should be of greater concern as any te Iwi Maori are kept in NZ. It is the fear of having Maori bosses that again shows your personal insecurity.

Davey G
If the Crown sign a treaty, it is legally committed to it until or unless it renegotiates or withdraws from the treaty. If that is to happen, then the other party must be involved in a renegotiation or (in the case of an international bilateral agreement) there could be international legal arbitration as to the impact of withdrawal on the ceding party. The current Government is not talking about renegotiation or withdrawal, but unilateral reinterpretation against the finding of fact their own courts.

Davey S
The Principles have been legally defined through jurisprudence. I used to run ToW workshops with the original principles and the development through the courts to a wider list. Like the Principles of Natural Justice, they are conceptional but required. Reciprocity, active protection, partnership, equity, and equal treatment, or the Courts added to act reasonably and in good faith, the right of remedy and consultation for the State to make informed decisions. The Privy Council confirmed these in 1994 - Lord Woolf made the following comment: In Their Lordships’ opinion the “principles” are the underlying mutual obligations and responsibilities which the Treaty placed on the parties. They reflected the intention of the Treaty as a whole and included, but were not confined to, the express terms of the Treaty.

M Hughes said...

Thanks for your analysis Chris, and for the many excellent (and one or two less so) comments on it. What exactly is wrong with having a referendum? Especially if we were to make it a "sense of the populace" vote? Then Parliament and the so-called "expert committee" would have a starting place for debate and negotiation. And then, after considered discussion both in and out of Parliament, let's have a binding referendum.

Tom Hunter said...

This highlights that the real issue is that you and others feel the control and privilege in NZ society is being challenged

Chuckle. As long as you're not the one in charge you're comfortable with challenging control and privilege - until you or yours get to be in charge where control and privilege is suddenly acceptable.

I call it the Ohkrana-Cheka change.

Meantime my control and privilege in this society doesn't appear to amount to much in the face of all these developments by very controlling and privileged people in the legal community. But that again has always been part of the Far Left's deceptive narrative in crafting tales of oppressor/oppressed.

As far as the Trans stuff is concerned I actually don't have an issue with them living their lives as they wish: they'd have fitted in well with the ancient Greeks. And in fact Trans people have been living increasingly better lives in the West as the years have rolled by, thanks to the tolerance of ordinary people like me.

What's changed now are Trans activists who demand more than tolerance; for the rest of us to yield to all their personal demands, whether being addressed as xe/xer or a having a 100kg male joining a women's handball team - with punishments threatened if the demands are not obeyed.

They've become the oppressors, particularly of women, and you're perfectly fine with that.

But again, that fits with your approach to every issue. Plead tolerance and acceptance - right up until you have the power.

Tom Hunter said...

It is the fear of having Maori bosses that again shows your personal insecurity.

I've actually had Maori bosses. I didn't notice much difference between them and White or Asian bosses.

What you're actually admiring are the likes of Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi, who have Castro/Lenin and company in their bones. And those are bosses that everybody should be afraid of.

Not you of course; given your painful lack of self-awareness (entirely typical of psuedo-intellectuals) you think you'll be treated nicely by such bosses; Koba, why must I die and all that.

Tom Hunter said...

As usual there is a vast gulf between the academic and legal debates about partnership and so forth and the brutal reality, So what are the consequences for the illegal destruction of 39 huts?:

The court also found Te Uru Taumatua acted unlawfully by demolishing the huts without having in place an annual operational plan, and that Te Uru Taumatua and the director-general acted unlawfully by failing to prepare an annual operational plan for the past two years, as required by law.

With the full cooperation of DOC and no legal consequences at all.

As a Leftist tweeted after the October 7 Hamas attacks, What did y’all think de-colonisation meant?

Or you could think of it as just another aspect of ethnic cleansing. But de-colonisation sounds much more sophisticated.

Now that's power and privilege.

Michael Johnston said...

It might be "a finding of fact" under the current law, but my point is that the courts are not ultimately sovereign, the people are. Once again, a referendum is a legitimate way to change the legal facts in a democracy.

The Barron said...

A lecturer of mine once said what I think was pseudo-Marx, "the vanguard of the revolution is when we betray our own privilege".

The Barron said...

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

The Barron said...

The Principles are derived by the Courts from the TWO. The government has stated it will mot change TWO. What it is saying is it will change legal findings. Indeed, Seymour said he disagreed with the Courts. He is an Associate Minister of Justice, and blatantly defies the convention against criticising Court decisions. In any other instance this would demand his resignation.

Like you cannot use Parliament to redefine international law or the principles of natural justice, you cannot alter principles of law without breaching the role of justice on a civil society.

Anonymous said...

Who really gives a toss what Dame Salmond thinks? We voters have made our
overwhelming decision obvious. We voted National locally and ACT nationally to ensure that National could not chicken out of the required reforms. We don’t completely trust National, but they are better than Labour.
God help National and NZ First if they fail to follow through on the Referendum, or fail to support it, they will become a one term Government. There is absolutely no margin for vacillation, people are pissed off! Just ask the Kiwis who voted, they/we are not fools.
Ignore us at your peril.

Brian said...

What Barron says boils down to his belief that New Zealand is a nation with 2 levels of citizenship - 1st class citizens, the 16% who self-identify as Maori and have privileges and advantages not available to the other 84%, who make up the vast majority of the population but are 2nd class citizens by virtue of being denied the privileges and advantages enjoyed by the 16% 1st class citizens !
I disagree strongly with Barton’s anti-democratic ideology !

Anonymous said...

They could rule a man is a woman

Anonymous said...

Liminal gendered identities? Deary me. Sex is defined biologically, at a cellular level. Pretending to be something does not make you that thing. It's just playing dress ups. Surgery is little different. Chopping the legs of a lizard doesn't make it a snake. And, as as has been pointed out above, it's the biology that matters, for the physical and sexual safety of women.

The Barron said...

Biology has always produced a number of human births that are intersex, this should not be rendered invisible or unnatural. Gender as an constructed identity has created liminal identities in all cultural groups at various times.
I really can't understand how much history and anthropology must be ignored to maintain an ahistorical and acultural position.
Even those who draw Biblically should acknowledge Matthew 19:12 or Isaiah 56:3-5. For those who rationally draw from medical and social science, there has been liminal gendered identities throughout time and cultures. Indeed, India has legal recognition of hijras and eunuchs as third genders.
A side point, taxonomy would classify both lizards and snakes as squamata, and even within the suborder of lizard, there are those without legs.

The Barron said...

"The privileges and advantages..."
Clearly you have never been exposed to any social stats. The main detirminer of wealth is inherited wealth. The Waitangi Tribunal and the courts have shown Te Iwi Maori were denied what should have been inherited wealth and resources. Others built wealth from those resources which remains inheritance. There is no direct claim on that wealth.
The state also accumulated wealth from that which was Maori, and there are processes for very limited compensation. The vast wealth and resources unlawfully denied Maori remain in others inheritance or with the state.
Brian, it is always clear that that the right is invested in a system based on generational transfer of wealth, resources and infrastructure, unless it is not old tie.

The Barron said...

It seems you, not Parliament, sees yourself as the arbitrator of others gendered identity.

Tom Hunter said...

The main detirminer of wealth is inherited wealth.

I expect nothing more from a member of the far left, but the fact is that immigrants have been proving this wrong since the middle of the 19th century, and continue to do so.

And in recent times in the US that includes Black immigrants to the USA from Africa.

That's the USA but we see the same thing today in NZ with Indian and Asian immigrants doing better in just a few years even compared to native Pakeha, let alone Maori and Pasifika - something that has given rise to the usual envy to which immigrants are subjected.

And of course if this Leftish attitude about "inherited wealth" is embedded in what Maori think is going to happen as a result of TOW settlements then they're going to be in for a lot of disappointment. Although given poor Maori stats on health, education and income ever after forty years of settlements you'd think the penny would have dropped by now.

The Barron said...

The top 1% in the USA owns at least 32% of wealth. The top 20% at least 86%.
The wealthiest 10th of NZ households have 50 % of NZ household wealth. The top 1% in NZ are 68% wealthier than the average New Zealanders 1% owns 25% of NZ wealth.
Thank you for the far left moniker, sadly I'm an old social democrate