Hard News: Footnotes
234 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last
-
and that's better that the consensus system of the Kalahri bushmen?
bullshit.
I was just pointing out that South Africa didn't have what most people would consider to be democracy until the 1990s.
That whole "you black folk can't vote" and all that.
-
I was just pointing out that South Africa didn't have what most people would consider to be democracy until the 1990s.
That's convenient, maybe the same will be said about the tainted Bush terms in in 50 years.
-
..by that I'm referring to Gitmo, The response in New Orleans, and Directive 51
Like I said Mark, I'm over it and in my opinon we should politely agree to disagree.
Strange that you should find politeness an acceptable course this late in the piece. peace Rich.
-
That's convenient, maybe the same will be said about the tainted Bush terms in in 50 years.
I forgot that I was wasting time by engaging in you with reasonable facts and logic. Nevermind.
-
I was just pointing out that South Africa didn't have what most people would consider to be democracy until the 1990s.
Retrospectively stating that South Africa wasn't a democracy for the 50 odd years of people were voting in Apartheid governments is selective and revisionist. It was an inhumane democracy.
By the same token the same could be said that New Zealand wasn't a 'true' democracy until 19 September 1893
or 1919 when women could stand for parliament?
Either way there in lies the conundrum
Because I'd say with utmost confidence that New Zealand has been a __flawed__democracy since the first election in 1853. However you can take your logic as far as necessary Kyle.
Isn't applying the logic that only the most democratic or least discriminatory democracy (ie. the end product) can define what constitutes a democratic system inherently undemocratic?
Would you give creedence to assertions from citizens of East Timor, Indonesia, North Korea, the Seychelles and Sudan (16 years old), Austria, Brazil, Cuba, Nicaragua (17 years of age) that New Zealand is not a democracy because of discriminatory legislation denying anyone under the age of 18 the right to vote?
-
Ah yup. See my last post.
-
Ok I see Kyle, well it's nothing personal sorry for being an ass about this I have no issue with your facts, but I am interested in your logic, As you stated;
I was just pointing out that South Africa didn't have what most people would consider to be democracy until the 1990s.
I'm hoping you can review these dates and answer a simple question below.
a) 1853 - first election 1853
b) 1867 - Māori seats established, giving Māori four reserved seats in the lower house. There was no property qualification; thus Māori men gained universal suffrage before any other group of New Zealanders. However.
c) 1879 - Property requirement abolished. Universal suffrage granted for all men men over 21.
d) 1893 - Women given equal voting rights with men, making New Zealand the first nation in the world to allow adult women to vote.
e) 1919 - Women eligible to be elected to the House of Representatives
f) 1941 - Women eligible to be elected to the New Zealand Legislative Council (the Upper House of Parliament)
g) 1969 - Voting age lowered to 20.
f) 1974 - Voting age lowered to 18.
h) 1975 - Franchise extended to permanent residents of New Zealand, regardless of whether they have citizenship.
j) 1996 - Number of Māori seats increased to reflect Māori population.
Question
In your opinion, at what point do you think New Zealand became what most people in the world would consider a democracy?
-
-
Some how the argument about reconditioning comes to mind, and measuredly the question, are we caring enough about the player's needs or are we here primarily to win the tournament. no one could argue that the reconditioning program wasn't a complete success prior to the game against France.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.