Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
If they're 'charged' with contempt, then the S-G is effectively admitting that it is impossible for Te Qaeda members to get a fair trial, and that all the firearms charges should be permanently stayed.
I think I can see why he wants to avoid conceding that point.
You're the lawyer Graeme, and I'm not, but I would have thought that A doesn't necessarily lead to B. Breaching the order is simply that - publishing the material. It could mean that the legal process is harmed, but it might not - it's presumably for the judge to decide.
Wouldn't it be possible to pursue the paper for contempt on the basis that any publication is contempt of the order, and then separately argue, that this particular suppression breach was not sufficient to remove the fair trial?
So can I, but can see the S-G is eventually going to have get a spine implant and assert that suppression orders exist for damn good reasons and hacks (and the Police officers who love leaking to them) are going to have to do a bit better than squeaking 'public interest'.
I thought we'd all concluded that the published material came from the defense side, not the police side. Or was the one published on the internet different from the one the Dom used?
-
But these are national polls that don't indicate how the electoral college might go. The popular vote as we all know is not the determiner. It's who can win in states like Ohio and Florida.
They're also polls in March and February, not November. I suspect Clinton will argue that she'll debate better and deal with the campaign better rough and tumble better, and Obama would probably put twice as many people on the ground as she would, and it seems, raise a crapload more money. He's looking like he'd draw more independents and traditional 'non-voters', particularly young people, but the question really will be who will do better in 'battleground states' if you want to know who'll win. There's half a dozen states that'll decide this election, the rest is all FPP waffle.
-
Oh the Maori fighting tactics were by and large very superior, and they figured out their enemy very well and led them down the garden path.
But I was commenting on the other side's inability to learn when it happened again, and again, and again. They couldn't see that Maori were building perfect traps for them, they had to attack everything that was put in front of them.
Maori 'rebels' were writing the script and the other side was simply reading along obediently.
-
Kyle that is not fair. Guerilla wars are never won without total saturation of troops.
Gotta give credit where it is due rather than blame Colonial forces for falling into traps.
I'm not clear on what you're saying here. Who needs credit?
-
Turns out that if you voted in the Texas primaries, you're prohibited to sign a petition for an indy candidate.
That was just bizarre. It's not just that there are various levels of government in America that are anti-democratic.
It's that they're not even subtle about it.
-
The Land Wars were seldom simply a "maori v pakeha" affair: intertribal alliances and greivances had a major role, and there were, at times, more maori fighting for the (pakeha) government than against it.
Yes. But British and Colonial commanders were in charge, hence some of the shocking ambushes that they walked into. The lack of learning ability when faced with "ooh, the rebel Maori have built a brand new pa in the middle of no where, for no apparent purpose other than the fact that we're coming. Let's attack it and wander around aimlessly while they shoot us from protected firing trenches, or even ambush areas outside the pa" was quite astounding.
-
Well to run with Wikipedia, which will do until someone has a better reference:
The establishment of Māori seats came about in 1867 with the Māori Representation Act, drafted by Napier Member of Parliament (MP) Donald McLean... In the end the setting up of Māori seats separate from existing seats assuaged conservative opposition to the bill - conservatives had previously feared that Māori would gain the right to vote in general electorates, thereby forcing all MPs (rather than just four Māori MPs) to take notice of Māori opinion.
Before this law came into effect, no direct prohibition on Māori voting existed, but other indirect prohibitions made it extremely difficult for Māori to exercise their theoretical electoral rights. The most significant problem involved the property qualification - in order to vote, one needed to possess a certain value of land. Māori owned a great deal of land, but they held it in common, not under individual title, and under the law, only land held under individual title could count towards the property qualification. Donald McLean explicitly intended his bill as a temporary measure, giving specific representation to Māori until they adopted European customs of land ownership. However, the Māori seats lasted far longer than the intended five years, and remain in place today.
Ironic that at the time conservatives wanted separate Maori seats so that (relatively populous at the time) Maori couldn't have any control over general seats, but now, conservatives want to get rid of them and force Maori (now not so populous in relative terms) to vote in general seats.
Note the temporary measure - it was intended that Maori would get into a more traditional property ownership, and then these seats would cease to exist, or change to individual ownership, but that didn't happen, and then property ownership ceased to be the condition for voting.
I think you're linking together the wars and representation when there wasn't such a link at the time. Yes Maori were agitating for representation, because they were getting screwed over.
But the Waikato was invaded to subdue the King Movement, and get a whole heap of land. Waikato Maori were, by-and-large, defending themselves, though they had agitated and weren't unaware (or overly concerned to an extent) that war was coming. A lot of them had just fought in the Taranaki Wars, and knew that they could probably beat the British to a standstill.
The direct impact of that war was the land confiscations and hounding of the King Movement into the backblocks. Maori didn't really consider Pakeha government to extend into their own, rural territories (and before the wars, this was pretty much true - see the wikipedia entries on the NZ wars), getting part of that government wasn't their goal. The participants in the Wars were still fighting for independent control of their regions, under a loose Crown oversight (and we could discuss kawanatanga/rangatiratanga here), not being sucked into the system.
It's a case of, just because C follows A, doesn't mean A causes C. A caused B - land confiscation. C is more a product of the climate at the time.
-
These are relatively small fits of indecision, but will have confirmed in Labour's mind that Key is prone to blurting when he can't phone a friend.
Lucky for him in politics, the 50/50 option is almost always available. Sell/don't sell. Smack/don't smack kids. Deadline for treaty negotiations/not... er almost, kinda maybe not definite deadline.
Why don't people get all hot and bothered in the same way about the NFL/NHL?
I haven't seen Monday night's game because the cap is taking ages (if anyone posts a spoiler there will be blood on the floor), but my Anaheim Ducks are only four points behind Dallas Stars for 2nd spot in the West. They're 9-1-0 in the last 10, _with_ players on the IR. Giggy is pulling numbers that put him right at the top in the league, Selanne is having a brilliant return, and they're setting themselves up for a big run right into June and a repeat performance to lift the Stanley Cup.
What, no one else follows NHL? Soccer/football? Whatever.
-
there is no "hard-fought" political rights about it.
You don't think the land wars involved fighting?
I'm sure they involved fighting, but Maori weren't fighting for political rights - at least not representative ones. They were fighting to protect their land.
I suspect a better description of the process might be "now we have taken a whole heap of your land, have a couple of seats in parliament". It really didn't relate to the wars much at all, as much a way of providing representation in parliament for Maori, and (for some), as a way to push them towards European land ownership principles.
-
I'm always undecided about the Maori seats. Yes they're anti-democratic to an extent. They don't fulfil any partnership obligations under the treaty - that would require a parallel body of some sort, through which legislation also had to pass.
But they do provide needed representation for Maori and Maori issues. I just don't think that's their purpose, though some people would say it was.
I don't feel I can conclude that they should stay or go, until I've tied down what they're for, and I can never define that properly.
They feel like a historical thing that we're holding onto because we feel that they're a good thing in reality, but can't find the principles that explain why.