Dirty racist ACT scum

1. The only scum here is Bradbury . . . a piece of left-wing filth.

   • When a shot hits the target and people have no logical counter-argument to reply with, they resort to insults.

     Thanks IGM, you’ve shown MB hit a bulls-eye.

     • JW hits the target, MB has no logical counter argument so resorts to insults by calling ACT “racist scum” and drops unnecessary F-bombs everywhere.

   • IGM – yeah, yeah, whatever.

     Now. Try addressing the points Martyn raised.

2. So wanting every New Zealander to be under the same standards and laws is racist. I would like someone to tell me how equality is racist.

   • Because equality across the board is great only if you ignore that everything in the world has context.

     For example, if we treated all kids in a class room equally, than those with learning disabilities would be given no extra access to resources or teaching. If we aim for equitable treatment then we recognise the context and adjust to treat everyone fairly.

     Simple, really.

     If people are over-represented in negative statistics such as health, education and crime, then it is more equitable to have seperate policies to target that group. If the reason why that group is performing poorly in those fields is due to historic and entrenched marginalisation that disenfranchised the group, let’s say Maori, with not having the same access to voting and education that the Pakeha majority had, then let’s recognise that in policy.

     • EXACTLY

     • I am amazed that someone here can actually post a rational thought, well done.

       However your example of the child in the class with learning disabilities is not a racial policy however if the law said that only children with purple eyes were able to get the help they needed while those with orange eyes could not then that would be a different story. Everyone starting from the same base point are able to get to the same results no matter what they are or where they come from. If one group in any society do not want to pull their weight and so are over-represented in negative statistics such as health, education and crime then they need a “hand up not a hand out”. If they are performing badly and it was due to their race (which I must say it is not) then there would be none who could perform up to par. However this is not the case. Historically there were issues with voting ability why does that mean there has to be race based seats in parliament or on councils, why are the poor folks in Auckland city held to ransom by an unelected race based advisory board. Why so we not have an exclusive advisory board for the short, green eyed Asian population, a group extremely under represented in NZ.

       • Colin,

         To your point about a lack of say an Asian minority board, that is because the state officially recognises that NZ is first and foremost a bicultural partnership between the indigenous Maori and Pakeha. The Treaty of Waitangi establishes a particular expectation for the Crown to protect the rights of Māori.

         How the Auckland council administers local governance must reflect this overarching principle of partnership.

         “…Historically there were issues with voting ability why does that mean there has to be race based seats in parliament or on councils…”

         I’m glad you acknowledge the existence of historic marginalisation of Maori. Why does it mean race based policy, in this case a race based council body, is necessary? It is because we cannot look at the current state of New Zealand society in isolation from our past.

         – Historic marginalisation has adversely affected the status and statistics of Maori in 2014.

         – The NZ state acknowledges it has unique, enduring and specific bicultural partnership obligations with Maori due to the Treaty of Waitangi.

         – Equitable policy requires that NZ makes amends for the past and it’s effect on today’s society by proactively targeting and representing Maori so that these negative statistics become something of our past.

         ACT, a party seeking to be part of the post 20 Sept government, ignoring and even distorting this race-based reality is what I imagine brings MB to highlight the party’s racist policies.

       • Omg its called the treaty of waitangi. A treaty between two nations, neither of these two nations are asian, american, middle eatern etc. Just in case you didnt catch that, THE TREATY OF WAITANGI. Yes I know you will (predictably) say their are no full blooded maori left, but guess what, there actually are, and those that arent, a large number in fact, in spite of their mixed ethnicity, still identify as maori, because being maori is not a color, or an eye shape, its a state of mind. We no longer will allow you to stuff us into your little square holes. We may not be educated to your standards, but we do have opinions and some of us are no longer scared to voice them.

   • So, Colin. Would you care to tell us which laws you consider “racist”?

     Can you give us, say, three examples?

     • Take you pick:
       http://www.ots.govt.nz/

   • You’re on the wrong page Colin .. I think you meant to go here :
     https://www.facebook.com/ThePakehaParty?fref=ts

     • No Sorry but I was right the first time.

3. Equality is racist and unequal when the start point is not the same. If Maori need a hand up so that they can start from the same place as the rest of us I don’t see what the problem is.
   As NZ was created as a partnership between Maori and the rest the standards need to be negotiated between Maori and everyone else. The standards have just been imposed very bad faith on the part of everyone else!

   • Lucy, I would not call it a “hand up”. To pakeha level??? More like Maori need the recognition of their desires and how their culture is being stifled beneath the colonial impositions of us immigrants. Then we should work out how to equalise, by assimilating the best of both worlds.
     Act is so self-agrandising.

4. One only has to look at prison statistics to see that Maori do NOT have legal privilege. Treating everyone equally and treating people fairly are not the same thing. Justice requires that we cater services to the inequality that already exists and don’t apply the one rule fits all mentality that is proven to be ineffective.

5. I am still coming to grips with the real reason ACT and National created the Auckland Council anyway, because this big inefficient bureaucracy sure as shit hasn’t delivered and its a sure as shit not the reasons they gave.

   Going by the way they set it up I can only assume the true intention was to sell off publicly held assets to benefit their mates, via the stooge mayor who was supposed to win upon been anointed by Key as the chosen one.

6. Citizenship is not a buffet table or a smorgasbord. None of us can go out and choose the bits we like from citizenship and leave out the bits we don’t like. Citizenship is a fundamental obligation. It is a matter of both responsibilities and rights.

   You are responsible, not just for the good things but for all the mistakes we’ve made. The fact that you might not have been here when we made those mistakes doesn’t let you out of responsibility. We bear part of our national responsibility for how badly we treated the first people. Those narratives of oppression are there in the background, echoing in the silence between words every time people talks about justice, peace and equality.

   We could continue walking the path of us, European inheritors and them, the not yet sufficiently like us. But we could also move forward recognizing the terrible harms that have been done and the great lessons that the First Nations have taught us.

   The heart of New Zealand citizenship has been an ongoing battle for egalitarianism and justice. It is built into the very heart of our Treaty of Waitangi. This concept of equality is all about fairness and inclusion.
   Obligation. What does that mean? It means building justice. It means building equality. It means building the place. That’s what obligation means.

   It is far too simplistic to claim that we are all equal under the law, because that is patently untrue. The laws have been written, for the most part, by white men for the benefit of white men. So under which law does the black man, the yellow man, the wo-men achieve equality?

Comments are closed.