Thanks for the response to my question, Graeme. While yours is an experienced response, lawyers are not unanimous in support of it. Like with a doctor, you can get several different professional opinions, and you cannot predict how a case may unfold in court.
My impression was that the Law society condemned the EFB because the process was faulty, hasty and messy, not because it gagged free speech. It does make free speech more difficult during election year because of the swag of compliances, but in essence it does not do what the doomsayers think it does.
Annette King loudly proclaims that common sense would prevail. I believe her, however I think we darn well need a whole lot more than common sense to cement the meaning and purpose of this legislation.
Do you think that clause 3 (the stated purpose of the bill) could be used to limit prosecutions to those public 'advertisements' that involve a commercial transaction, such as hiring a megaphone van, or paying for an advert? Surely you could not prosecute someone under a bill with the term 'financial' in it, if the activity was purely 'non-financial', eg: a blog post?
Steven, Farrer is claiming that you agree with his interpretation of the bill:
Personally I can see huge differences between your view and his. Correct me if I'm wrong.
<blockquote>Does anyone else find this extraordinary?</blockquote>
Just more confirmation that no one really takes this threat of terrorism seriously.
While some individual Maori might be disaffected and resentful, I don't think there is the motivation for a NZ branch of Al Qaeda.
Back to the topic of the thread: I think that publishing this material is probably some kind of contempt of court. Certainly it upsets the fair trial process.
In addition if these people really are terrorists, then Phillip Kitchen's life is on the line, because he would likely be a target now. If Phillip really believed these allegations described little more than the rantings of teenage disaffected youth on P, then he wouldn't have put his head in the lion's mouth. But then who knows, he might have a suicidal streak.
Certainly I don't think it was wise and would have preferred to see the evidence after it had been through the judicial process rather than before.
Nobody says: I don't see newzealand.com anywhere.. Umm everytime our team is reported (on TVNZ anyway) it is referred to as Emirates Team New Zealand.
This is a global event with global coverage. Any event involving countries at opposite ends of the globe is global. Eleven teams represents just under eleven different countries. Rugby union is global, and while it stirs up a passion in NZ, it would not get a ripple in Indonesia and probably gets less coverage than the America's cup globally.
The media exposure the cup gets may not be mind bending, but it is over a long period. For Emirates it is like the glossy mag that sits for several months on the coffee table and is picked up and admired by slightly bored clients waiting for the doctor/lawyer/etc. Emirates represents, not a nation, but a multinational corporation. I can't see how having them as chief sponsor connects with having to have the Cup in Dubai, except for the large number of expat kiwis who work there.
As I said, the team name is reported as " Emirates Team New Zealand". It was interesting that in the ETNZ vs BMW oracle race, 25 out of 34 sailors in both yachts were kiwis. We are a sailing nation and should be proud of it.
And then there was The Great Unwashed...
In the 80's I bought up FN records by the score, enjoying every single one of them, but also thinking that I would make a killing when they become collectors items.
Yeah, right. FN titles continue to be produced and listened to 20 years later.
I'll never forget Look Blue Go Purple, although I never saw them, the EP is great.
Those are great responses, Manakura.
Maybe the definition of indigeneity should include a 'not being easily able to return to whence they came' factor. Sure the Maori came by canoe, but there was no established pattern of return to Hawaiki. Similarly the American migration 10,000 yrs ago was cut off by the disappearance of the Alaskan land bridge. All other 'indigenous' people as we understand them live within a limited geography with no habit of 'return' to place of origin.
Colonization during the Age of Discovery however was based on returning the profits to Europe (and NZ served this function right up to the 1970's). Once that no longer happened and those colonies became independent, Europe remained the cultural center with no small amount of competition from the US.
I remember as a kid, it was assumed that NZ produced no 'culture' eg NZ music was crap, NZ films were amateur etc. Now we have a lot more respect for our own ability to create cultural items that are as good as anywhere else. That doesn't then start to make us 'indigenous' people, because we who have European geneology can still easily return to place of origin.
I would tend to agree with you that indigenous can only apply to Maori. Being 'indigenous', even as a 5th generation NZer, is not something I have ever imagined myself being.
I feel this discussion is stuck behind certain mind-sets. Manakura says:
"I have not ever doubted many or most Pakeha have developed a strong attachment to Aotearoa "
This may be why many NZers are calling themselves NZers. No longer having close ties with Europe, perhaps never having been there, they now find it meaningless to call themselves 'European'.
Your definition of indigenous, Manakura, is very much shaped by the Maori experience. Does it fit with Australian aboriginees, Papuan hill tribes, Aleutian eskimos, and Andaman Indians to name just a few of the 'indigenous' peoples of the world. I think, to keep the meaning of the word useful, it pays to keep it simple and as widely applicable as possible. I think you are loading it with too much of your meaning, so it is losing 'objectivity' and thus universal utility.
Also, if I have 1/8th Maori can I consider myself indigenous? Or if I am accepted by an iwi as a member of a tribe but have no Maori at all, can I then call myself indigenous?
I think that the category Asian is reasonably useful so long as it clear what it refers to. Wikipedia has comparisons between different countries for census definitions of 'Asian'.
In its simplest form indigenous means 'native' or born of the land. An Asian emigrating here would consider all the Europeans he/she encounters here as being 'indigenous'.
I am not trying to make a stand on any of these points, just shift the mind set a little.