Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
@kyle. i think we're talking in circles. but, because this is making me exercise parts of the brain i thought were dormant, here we go...
It's revenge for all those blog posts you did. As soon as you started talking about 'metics' my brain always started to hurt.
Your four points there, have basically taken te reo outside the treaty. It's an argument for provision of broadcasting not because it's a protected treaty right (taonga), but instead because it's one of the two national languages. Unrelated to the treaty completely really in the way you've put it. Similar to protections that are in place in Quebec for French. Maybe other examples which have been directly related to the treaty are more appropriate.
I still come back to this:
I still think 'more' is a valid thing to consider. Does article 2 (at least in theory) give Maori anything additional, stronger, or otherwise 'more' than that available to non-Maori. I suspect it does, part of the reason why it's been used in legal and quasi-legal arguments such as the Waitangi Tribunal.
If it doesn't, what is the purpose of article 2? Simply to convince Maori to sign, when in reality it offers no more than already given in article 3? To slip the Crown's preemtive right of purchase in, in a positive, rather than negative way? Do you see no positive for Maori in article 2 at all? If so... why is it so firmly embedded in so many Tribunal claims. If article 2 offers them nothing, then surely they would only pursue through article 3, effectively saying "by having our land taken off us we were not given the same rights as other British subjects".
And (if you follow that line) - that's not a valid argument in most instances of land claims. Parliament is sovereign, so when parliament took land off Maori, it wasn't breaching their crown-given rights - parliament takes land off non-Maori and it's perfectly legal - civil works acts etc. If it wasn't breaching their crown-given rights under article 3, surely it we come back to article 2?
-
so maori have rights to "their fisheries", "their forests". this doesn't take anything from you, it just recognises that they have.
Yes good point. But the treaty has been used to argue for things that Maori never had - airwaves for example. The particularly broad term 'taonga'.
I still think 'more' is a valid thing to consider. Does article 2 (at least in theory) give Maori anything additional, stronger, or otherwise 'more' than that available to non-Maori. I suspect it does, part of the reason why it's been used in legal and quasi-legal arguments such as the Waitangi Tribunal.
-
Or do we have a sliding scale of ethics for politicians now?
You must be new around here.
-
i'm pretty sure than a offer and guarantee of enjoyment of the rights you already enjoy, and also the rights guaranteed as a subject of the crown doesn't mean "more rights than the current subjects of the crown".
I personally wouldn't claim to be sure. But if we have as a baseline, article 3 - Maori and non-Maori have those rights.
If there's anything in article 2 guaranteed to Maori, which isn't covered by article 3 - let's say - undisturbed rights over forests and fisheries.
If that isn't given to them by article 3, and isn't a right of any non-Maori subject of the crown, then surely it must be 'more'? I would have thought that the Treaty process would agree - a lot of treaty claims are surely based in part on part 2, not part 3?
-
as an example. i have dual new zealand and australian citizenship. this means i can enjoy the rights of both jurisdictions. but if you don't have australian citizenship it doesn't mean you're worse off than me.
Well no, it would make me way better off, as no one could point at me and call me an Aussie and harass me about underarm bowling.
But, to be more sensible, you would have the right to vote in Australia, I wouldn't. So you would have more rights than me.
-
Plus, how do you file it alphabetically? Very vexing!
Exactly! If I was organised enough to file my DVDs alphabetically rather than just jamming them every which way into a drawer and then piling them around the TV when I ran out of room... This would give me considerable issues!
-
Oh sorry, my bad language. I guess I mean breach of supression order rather than contempt.
-
article one = "one sovereign". check.
article two = "maori take care of their own". check.
article three = "equal rights under the sovereign" . check.I think your 3 is a little misleading their Che. Equal rights implies that everyone has the same rights - no more, no less.
That's not what the treaty says - at least the English one, my Maori isn't good enough to work with the Maori one. Article 3 says:
In consideration thereof Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects
They have all the rights and privileges of British subjects, but the article doesn't limit them to having more rights than that. It doesn't say - you have the equal rights, it says you have all these rights.
Indeed, I would argue that article 2 extends that, offering more rights than those which are given to the rest of us British subjects (hasn't necessarily worked out that way, but anyway).
-
maori don't. so... political theorists aren't sure how to manage it... that said, and potential gerrymander aside, the maori seats are a start and a bit of a case-study in self-determination in comprehensively intermixed national populations.
Do you think they're a case study in self-determination Che? I think they're interesting, but surely self-determination would mean... I dunno. A separate house which the Maori MPs sat in and which all legislation went through. Or, Maori MPs having control over a Ministry of Maori affairs and its own budget. Or controlling all taxes from Maori and respending it back out for Maori (similar to how some students associations have split it around NZ).
Surely the current Maori seats aren't self-determination, they're just representation?
-
anyone who has been to a Football match in the UK (or any other european country for that matter) will understand that spectator sport in this country can seem a bit passionless at times. If you’ve ever been to Anfield to watch the mighty Reds and heard ‘You’ll Never Walk’ alone belted out by the Kop you’ll know exactly what I mean.
I understand that going to a soccer/football match over there is probably a great experience, as long as you avoid any soccer hooligan violence. Great passion, singing, history etc. Similarly I wouldn't pay to go see the All Blacks play a test here in NZ, but I'd love to see them play Wales at Cardiff just to be amongst 100K Welsh in full song.
But soccer? Brief moments of excitement followed by long moments of people passing a ball around the midfield. If they're going to make the sport only exciting when the ball is near the goal, they should move the goals closer together.