Hard News: Must Try Harder
81 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
It reads as if it became something special, and something worth a bit more respect than the snide dismissal it got from John Key.
And do you think Clark could have been a little more snide and condescending herself? It's a bit rich snarking about the dumb Maori being suckered by National's "secret agenda", while down the road at a party function surrounded by the party faithful and invited guests and media.
I understand the politics and media strategy involved on Clark's part, but please don't ask me to accept that she was trying to do Ngapuhi any great favours, or making some grand stand in defence of 'civility' and 'respect'. Perhaps politicians in glass whare shouldn't be throwing stones when it comes to dignified and civil discourse.
I'm also resigned that in certain quarters, Key would be damned no matter what he did or said. Build a bridge and get over it, I suppose.
Anyway, an estimated 46,000+ attended commemorations at Waitangi and none of them got dragged away in paddy waggons after starting a riot. How about giving a little credit where credit's due, and not being quite so snide and dismissive yourself?
-
RN - are you able to expand on this;
"...highlighting of Iti's family in a speech, might turn out to be problematic for Key. I am willing to lay odds that Iti's public reputation will be rather poorer than it is now by year's end."
or this;
"Tame Iti will present himself as a hero while he still can" from your previous post?
Something substantial, or just conjecture?
Cheers
W -
(RN = RB, my bad)
-
Problematic right now: Close Up's funding of petrol vouchers and accommodation as the price of access to Iti and his famly at Waitangi. It runs dangerously close to paying for the story, however modestly. Moreover, it's the news media not just conveying a particular Waitangi narrative, but actively creating it. Bad move.
...reminds me of the time TV3's Keith Slater was pulled up by a High Court judge after allegedly offering a "hitman" they had interviewed a couple of days holiday anywhere in NZ, and the use of a cellphone for the duration.
-
Something substantial, or just conjecture?
Nothing new. The firearms charges Iti will face this year aren't themselves so serious, but the police will throw in every admissable piece of evidence they can. I think there's enough there to substantially affect public perceptions of those involved.
-
Whatever, Key's visit to Waitangi appears to have been a political triumph. I can't claim to understand the politics of it: Key was a member of the party of Don Brash; the party that apparently still wishes to repeal the foreshore and seabed legislation in order to extinguish any prospect of customary rights, and to abolish the Maori seats.
Yes, Virginia, Maori do actually appreciate people who have the bottle to come and say their piece to your face -- even when they know it's not going to be to an entirely enthusiastic audience. And I've heard first hand reports that Key's reception was civil (as it should have been), but people were hardly lining up to kiss his arse (equally as it should have been -- if Key wasn't there to listen more than he spoke, he shouldn't have been there at all).
Problematic right now: Close Up's funding of petrol vouchers and accommodation as the price of access to Iti and his famly at Waitangi. It runs dangerously close to paying for the story, however modestly. Moreover, it's the news media not just conveying a particular Waitangi narrative, but actively creating it. Bad move.
Equally problematic: Don't think it's a wise move for the Prime Minister opining on operational and editorial matters in the news department of a state-owned broadcaster. Three loved it, though.
Personally, my definition of a 'waste of public money' is more like TVNZ using a million dollars of funding earmarked for 'non-commercial' productions being used to extend the second series of Sensing Murder (a massive ratings success) by five episodes.
I've also got to wonder if Clark has a problem with the practice itself, or the fact that beneficiaries were Iti, his son and daughter in law? (She might also like to brush up on the difference between being charged with a criminal offense and a conviction.)
-
'waste of public money'
What? And consign kiwi psychics to welfare?
Wonder how many of the mediums predicted there'd be another series?
-
And do you think Clark could have been a little more snide and condescending herself?
Feb 5
Key slams Clark's absence from marae
Feb 6
Clark hits back over "get over it" comment
Was she supposed to say nothing?
-
So instead of having a few court cases short-circuited by negotiation and mutual settlement, we've had them short-circuited by law and a denial of fundamental human rights - with consequent feelings of betrayal and mistrust - to achieve pretty much the same result. In what universe could that possibly be considered a good outcome?
I would say this one.
Surly settlement by negotiation and agreement is a preferable way of achieving a solution to a problem than dragging it through the courts. As far as I can see the reason for the foreshore and seabed act was to clarify the status quo. This made it easier to reach an agreed settlement without having to resort to the courts in order to sort out the mess of legislation we had before. -
I thought Te Kaea had rather better coverage of Waitangi Day yesterday than the main news channels. Not just that they covered more events round the country, but with a degree less hysteria.
I haven't previously done anything in particular on Waitangi Day, but found my local experience at Ōtākou to be rather different to that presented in the msm. A very different tone.
-
As far as I can see the reason for the foreshore and seabed act was to clarify the status quo.
That's er... generous? I thought the reason for the Act was to remove from Maori the ability to pursue through court legal rights over the foreshore and seabed, because it was going to be a political shitstorm.
-
Surly settlement by negotiation and agreement is a preferable way of achieving a solution to a problem than dragging it through the courts.
I agree entirely - but regardless of how many cases went to court, that was what was going to happen anyway. You only have to look at the history of fisheries settlements to see that.
As for the law "settling the status quo", the reason why it was necessary was precisely that the status quo wasn't (or rather, it was somewhat different to what Pakeha thought it was - i.e. them owning everything and Maori being peons. And yes, with the ugly attitudes on display at the time, that is the appropriate way to describe it). In this case, the "solution" - stripping people of access to the courts on essentially racial grounds, in a way which exactly mirrored past abuses (you know the crown did this on land rights when maori started getting "uppity" and thinking justice applied to them, right?) - was not a good way of going about it.
Given the comments of the now Chief Justice in her opinion, past precedent on foreshore ownership, and the usual way we have of resolving such issues, I don't think we would have had anything to fear from iwi bringing cases to court. But then, my neck isn't red.
-
Was she supposed to say nothing?
Well, yes -- it might have been a good move to actually occupy the moral high ground instead of just claiming it. I know it played well in talkback land and she is perfectly entitled to arrange her diary as she sees fit, but her snub wasn't without barbs attached. And whatever else I'd say about Helen Clark, she's not prone to the random blurts.
-
Well much as we all seem to be apathetic/angry towards Waitangi Day it could be worse, it could turn into an Australia Day clone.
Although perhaps boozed mobs painted with the flag, silver fern and whatever clause catches their fancy could be kind of amusing.
-
Craig - "Snub?"
If I, or my colleagues, had been sprayed with urine (or perhaps even 'just' pelted with mud) at a particular venue, I wouldn't set foot within 500 yards of the place again.
Also wondering if anyone else went to the 'official' Auckland event at Orakei Domain yesterday. Great weather, tonnes of stalls ... but a significant proportion of 'angry brown yoof' trying to be staunch, shoulder others out of the way, spit, and so on.
Not especially pleasant we felt.
-
I thought Te Kaea had rather better coverage of Waitangi Day yesterday than the main news channels. Not just that they covered more events round the country, but with a degree less hysteria.
I haven't previously done anything in particular on Waitangi Day, but found my local experience at Ōtākou to be rather different to that presented in the msm. A very different tone.
Yes, it's the predictable media narrative and the accompanying posturing for political advantage I find wearying. I don't feel part of it.
-
That's er... generous? I thought the reason for the Act was to remove from Maori the ability to pursue through court legal rights over the foreshore and seabed, because it was going to be a political shitstorm.
So avoid the shitstorm by clarifying the law and making This possible. This claim would still be before the court under conditions existing before the act.
-
Well, yes -- it might have been a good move to actually occupy the moral high ground instead of just claiming it.
Alternative media narrative then: "Helen Clark has gone to ground, refusing to comment over claims that she should 'get over it' on Waitangi Day."
-
As for the law "settling the status quo", the reason why it was necessary was precisely that the status quo wasn't (or rather, it was somewhat different to what Pakeha thought it was - i.e. them owning everything and Maori being peons.
Exactly. The position had to be clarified. Whether right or wrong in the status that was created by the act it allows easier acces to redress and as such it should be looked at as a vehicle for solution rather than a land grab.
-
How many Clark critics would honestly 'get over' what she and her colleagues have experienced at Waitangi?
Can the same critics even explain why National's MPs should bother after their leader was pelted in the face with mud a few years back?
Sure, you *might* have a good day - a la yesterday.
But equally you could be wiping urine from your face.
-
This claim would still be before the court under conditions existing before the act.
Only if the government was slack. And they had every incentive to solve the problem quickly with settlements.
On the plus side, they wouldn't has poisoned relations with the other Treaty partner for a generation as well (something I think is pretty important if we want these settlements to stick).
Some legislation would still have been necessary - I think the sections of the F&SA covering customary rights are a pretty good framework. But we didn't need to violate article 3 and deprive people of due process and equality under the law in order to establish them.
-
Only if the government was slack.
A benevolent dictatorship under David Slack? Huzzah!
</threadjack>
-
Shadbolt, what a stickler for council process and procedure.
And old those ancient electoral laws he is trying (unsuccessfully?) to break, what kind of example does that set his council, I wonder.
-
My Waitangi day was spent enjoying the foreshore and seabed and not thinking about politics at all. Which actually felt like a holiday.
-
How does it violate article 3?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.