Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Unless of course they want you to, and one would have to be naive to think that Britney did not assume that the world would do so.
I despise the process whereby people become objects of derision and the target of self-righteous criticism and cynicism. At some point such criticism becomes banal. That point was reached 10 years ago IMO.
You can choose to understand Britney Spears as someone with very human strengths and weaknesses, or you can understand her as the embodiment of everything you dislike about popular entertainment. I happen to think Britney's music has as much authenticity as your average Turner Prize, but that is really a different point.
-
Totally agree David. Why do we feel entitled to make savage personal judgments about people we have only glimpsed at through the lens of the E channel? It takes a certain lack of human empathy to delight in other people's tragedies.
Without commenting in depth on our bizarre cultural hierachies, Norah Jones' Listener interview a few weeks back (on the reviews she received before and after her popular acclaim) was interesting. Sometimes our meritocratic ideals veer off into strange territory.
-
I didn't see Bond's opening spell (I heard it on the radio) but I saw the replays of his caught and bowled in the last match. What a champion that guy is.
Good to see Taylor play so well, and Fulton and McMillan repay the faith that has been shown in them. Was that our first ever one day series win against AUS? In any case it was one of the truly great NZ performances. Go Kiwi.
I made the drive from Thames to Coromandal township on the weekend, which was almost as apectacular as the cricket. No signs, but lots of trees.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
Its ironic that nuclear weapons prevent wars between major powers by making them unwinnable.
But sometimes that just aint enough to keep a man like me interested/No I gotta go out and have fun at someone elses expense
-
Tony Blair will step down as British PM having redefined the centre left. Not everyone will forgive him for this.
http://www.policy-network.net/events/index.aspx?id=554 -
Thank you for posting that Kymlicka link. Although I have not read the books you mentioned I enjoyed reading the summary. I am not able to address the points raised with any sophistication, but I understood the primary thesis to be that liberal societies must specifically protect minority cultural rights in order to ensure that any given individual's right to participate in their culture is equally protected.
I suppose I have tended to simplistically assume that diverse cultures arise from contingent historical forces plus common economic, social and political imperatives, and assumed that cultures will evolve and tend to converge over time as the commonalities comes to the fore. I will have to think about it some more.
Manakura, I didn't mean that as a criticism and I admire your desire to improve the world you see around you. I was just saying that the mere existence of a political force implies conflict with its opposite. While in theory I am not a fan of interest group politics, in practice its the only way of getting anything done.
-
Mark,
[...] the upshot is that we can now live in a colour-blind liberal democracy. That might work if the people who entered into the political relationship under the Treaty consent to this, or no longer exist. If not, then what Tully would say is that an intercultural dialogue must take place from equal bargaining positions to create a new political relationship.
In principle, I believe that our governmental structures should not politically or economically discriminate between cultures. I tend to think of this as a moral imperative.
But history defies theory in a number of ways. The Treaty is one, the breaches of the Treaty a second, the disadvantaged socio-economic position of Maori a third. So when Manakura says he wants to create an alliance of minority groups (to presumably set against other groups), the part of me that cares about principle cringes, and the part of me that looks at our country the way it actually is (and the way it actually happened) understands why such a mobilisation might be necessary.
Funny how quickly this fell of most people's radar
It is foolish to defend the indefensible, and what follows should not be read as an attempt to try. You are right to say, I think, that legislating away rights to customary title is not a very nice thing to do. That said, is the answer to your question that the FSA affects relatively few Maori in mostly insignificant ways? No doubt there will be exceptions.
Firstly, the difference between (territorial rights orders and customary rights orders) and (customary title amounting to fee simple) is easily exaggerated. This is particularly true when you consider what the foreshore actually is. Not being an expert, I can think of only a few rights, other than "ownership" itself, the right to exclude others (I'll come back to this) and commercial aquaculture that cannot be protected under the legislation.
Where customary title could have been proven, the groups affected by the FSA are entitled to territorial customary rights orders and may negotiate compensation from the Crown. So while the FSA is in some ways a forced taking, its not an entirely unmitigated one.
You are right to say that the FSA is an example of the tyranny of the majority. The political threat of customary title holders using their fee simple titles to exclude the public was too great - one of the FSA's stated objectives was to ensure public access to the beach.
The Ngati Apa decision reversed a 40 year old Supreme Court precedent and wreaked havoc with the interpretation of previous legislation that otherwise would have been taken to vest the foreshore in the Crown. This is reflected in s.13(2) of the Act. The decision was a direct cause of Orewa I which in turn almost led to a National government. Had Don Brash been elected I am sure we would be having a very different kind of conversation this Waitangi Day.
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleID=4131I could be wrong about all of this.
Cheers,
Weston -
Stephen,
If your point is that the FSA provides a mechanism for the judicial recognition of certain customary rights but gives title to the Crown (and therefore precludes the direct judicial recognition of customary title), I accept it.
-
Hey Manakura, Stephen
I should have started by saying that I enjoyed the post. If I had to say just one thing, it would be that the second part of this quote need not be limited by the first:
Instead Maori should get real and focus on rebuilding strategic political and economic alliances with workers, urban liberals, and with building new alliances with ethnic minorities, especially with the Austronesian and Asian diaspora in Aotearoa [...]
What is needed is a foundation of shared social, cultural and political-economic objectives. What I'm talking about is a kaupapa that is specific, practical and pragmatic.
I suppose my own worldview looks something more like this, even if our world renders it little more than a work in progress/idealistic fantasy.
Stephen, my point was a limited one. I can't say whether the customary rights orders allowed by the legislation are illusory or are tantamount to confiscation. I note only s.13(1), 13(2) and 13(3).
-
Deborah,
I'm not an expert in this area, but I understand that the Foreshore and Seabed Act does make provision for judicial determination of customary rights to the foreshore and seabed.
http://www.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpacts/public/text/2004/an/093.html
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=21539
“Groups will be able to secure customary rights orders protecting their right to continue any activities, uses and practices they have been exercising substantially uninterrupted since 1840. This does not include customary fishing rights as these were provided for separately in the fisheries settlement.
“All the legislation does is codify into statute existing common law rights. Nothing more, nothing less,” Dr Cullen said.