It’s not that I don’t like Red Peak, I do.
I think that design wise it is far more creative than the 4 designs they’ve dumped on us, I also think there is a lot more symbolism in Red Peak that defines us as NZers.
The issue I have with it is that it’s a solution to a problem no one wanted in the first place.
This entire debate has been a vanity project by Key to use whenever difficult issues pop up that the Government would prefer we were distracted from. It’s just a matter of time before Key u-turns on this and allows Red Peak to be included.
In terms of some people’s thoughts that changing the flag means that sovereignty is somehow removed from Parliament, I have to agree with Chris Finlayson…
Finlayson: theory about impact of removing Union Jack from flag ‘moderately nuts’
Attorney-General Chris Finlayson has described as “nuts” a theory that removing the Union Jack from the New Zealand flag would give the Government more power.
…here is what changes if we change the flag…
3Flags come under Admiralty law/commerce law
Regarding the changing of the flag and it’s relation to the TPPA,
what most don’t understand is that by changing the flag,
NZ PM John Key is able to invalidate the Treaty of Waitangi and the^ *1986 Constitution (which includes the Treaty of Waitangi) that was signed under it.
Our Constitution covers the Bill of Rights Act 1990, Human Rights Act 1993, Five Principles of the Treaty 1989, Magna Carta 1297, laws relating to individual rights, eg Education, Social Security, Privacy Act 1993, Public Works Act 1981.
While ‘the changing of the flag’ does appear to be a red herring to divert from other issues, this in itself is required for the TPPA to go ahead to full potential. Our Constitution (including The Treaty of Waitangi) and the TPPA can not co-exist.
Key has tried to get claims settled and has been hit with the fact that the Maori never intended to sign away sovereignty of NZ, but were told they were signing an agreement for joint rule. Key knows he can’t just make this ‘go away’, so he is deceitfully looking to invalidate the Treaty.
REFERENDUM suggestion (Please SHARE): Rather than boycott the referendum as your form of protest, we ALL need to be PRO-ACTIVE in this so JK can not turn around and say “no one cared to vote which shows no opposition to the new flag”. Instead of voting for one of the 2 new flag options, we need to ADD our current flag to the list and tick against that option. Now, this will be marked as an invalid vote, BUT, JK can not say no one cared, AND our goal should be to FLOOD the referendum with as many of these invalid votes as possible to make sure our opposition is overwhelmingly heard. We need to spread this info to all. If you have a way of getting it into the media then do it.
People need to know it’s not only the ‘cost’ of the flag that we need to be objecting to, but also JK’s underhanded and deceitful measures to invalidate an honest and legally binding treaty and Constitution, to in-act a secretive back room deal that sells our people out to Corporate power.
Citing a references for your claims would be useful.
its common knowlage so i did’nt think i needed any citation, most laws have a historical foundation & many are written in a long format that would send many people to sleep, but the main point I’m making is about Flags carring the authority of juristiction, if you look at any court room in NZ & especially paintings of the treaty signing there were flags (United tribes + Brittish flag) as they needed/had to be present to state authority & juristiction. these inherited things like our parliamentary rituals,rites & our laws all have a historical basis as well as meanings.
Does the timing alone (with the TPP plans) along with this sudden sense of urgency not set off your spider sences?
Any way for you E-CLECTIC ,this might help you with your research into commerce/admiralty law ,law of the flag ,statements of authority & juristiction
https://web.archive.org/web/20050806004543/http://law.loyno.edu/~beisen/maritime.html
….”Admiralty, or maritime law, is the private law of navigation and shipping and covers inland as well as marine waters. It is the entire body of laws, rules, legal concepts and procedures that relate to the use of marine resources, ocean commerce, and navigation. Maritime law was shaped by the practical needs of those countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea involved in maritime commerce, the roots of which are traced as far back as 900 B.C. Usually, the need was for legal solutions that had no application on land, therefore, as medieval codes began to emerge in port cities and states of Europe, the customs of mariners and merchants played a large part in the development of maritime laws. These early codes and customary law practices served to shape the current U. S. maritime law. The contracts, torts, offenses or injuries which are results of involvement in sea navigation or commerce make up this unique body of law.”
http://www.postmanproductions.org/?p=2785 is worth a read too, written by a graduate of both political science and history who may just know more than your adverage Joe.
lawyers love a good argument, so this could open up a huge can of worms, the other irony is that if our flag was to change then no doubt most will end up being made in china! (as we dont do child slavery – we out source it – out of our juristiction)
It’s not common knowledge, for the simple reason that it’s complete and utter rubbish. Changing our flag will have no impact on anything other than the actual flag change. This is just scaremongering nonsense put about by people who’re against a flag change. Well, I am, too, but I’m not ignorant enough to buy into it, and you shouldn’t either.
We really don’t need to go past the simple fact that like the queen on our money and the union jack the anthem and so many other symbols the flag is only symbolic and does not represent the crown. Its says right there in point 12
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/Documents/Files/NZ%20Constitution%20Cabinet%20Office%20backgrounder.pdf where the “others are more symbolic” which are the Queens council, the inclusion of the queen on the seal of new zealand, the union jack in the flag, the appearance of the queen on new zealand notes and coins, and the God save the queen as one of new zealand’s national anthems. Now if we were to change an anthem i’m sure it wouldn’t mean we can sign away sovereignty or make a trade deal with companies that want to over reach our current laws in favour of their own. The queen is still on the new printed money we have coming out soon. So Really it is simply not a fact that this misinformed and misconstrued idea that we somehow are selling up and all these minor details connect to make one big thing, when all it makes is big sad mockery of what we should be banding together against instead of division.
I remember a lot of grumbling when the Supreme Court was established that it would weaken the credibility of our legal system, and increase the power of Parliament. If anyone still wants to make this case, with evidence, I’d be happy to look at it, but I can think of a number of occasions where the Supreme Court has upheld due process when agents of the state overstepped their authority in service of the the government of the day.
If a major institutional change doesn’t make any significant difference to things like sovereignty, or Te Tiriti, why would a change of logo? And let’s not kid ourselves, despite all the commentary to the contrary, flags are logos for countries. People who get all teary-eyed over the flag might as well be doing this:
http://polr.me/3lb
I don’t think Key will do a U turn. He sees Red Peak as being a movement by those who don’t support the government, just as he did for the Asset Sales petition, and the anti-TPPA movement, and the woman whose hair he tugged multiple times etc. This is how he has sold all of these to his supporters. Anyone who has a problem with anything this government is doing is just a political group who doesn’t like the government.
disagree…if it comes to $26 million being spent for nothing…and the humiliation of no flag change ….i reckon jonkey would be happy to accept Red Peak
Perhaps the red peak option would of been more acceptable with an eye at the top of the pyramid. Lol.
lol…to the EYE at the top of the pyramid
and “SAY NO”…to flag change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ceiQQW2Daw&feature=youtu.be
Red Peak is not New Zealand …it is Australian( red soils) …or a uranium radioactive peak…New Zealand peaks are white (snow ), grey ( greywacke rock and shingle)
…it signifies nothing to do with New Zealand and its history…and the Treaty and Southern Cross which Maori navigated by
Red Peak ..it is a pretty geometric design signifying NOTHING…vacuous …except sinister in its direction
… to annihilate New Zealand’s Maori and Pakeha history and to deliver us into the hands of jonkey and his bankster corporate mates
http://aotearoaflag.tumblr.com/post/128161567872/red-peak-meaning
You need to look at the Red Peak Facebook page and see all the wonderful contributions by New Zealanders of what that flag means to them – some of the images are just superb and down to the core of what it really means to be a Kiwi.
Perhaps you’re being too literalistic – there are rules for good flag design that have their roots in heraldry, e.g. simplicity, symmetry, and easily recognised from a distance. Having said that, however, I think if the red were changed to green, and both top triangles were blue, it would be a perfect minimalist symbol of NZ as a country – green grass and hills, snow-capped mountains, and blue sky above them. Although, having said *that*, I don’t think the flag needs changing at all. As Martyn says, it’s nothing more than a costly vanity project for John Key, and we don’t need to buy into it.
yes dont buy into but BURY !
….we dont need Jonkey’s vanity and reframing and rewriting of New Zealand
…this is a CORRUPT government serving overseas big money corporations …not for the interests of New Zealanders and New Zealand
John Key will be the next President of NZ Inc, he is basic a puppet for Michael Fay, David Richwhite, Alan Gibbs, Trevor Farmer, the Fletcher Family and the Todd Family the major shareholders in NZ Inc.
He is operating under instructions from them as they have leveraged him into the PM position.
Goldman Sachs?….I think you need to look further afield overseas for the puppet masters
also worth a read *TPPA Flag Change not connected? Yeah Right.* TPPA http://www.postmanproductions.org/?p=3153
“This is my 6 points on why I think (this) blog has relevance.
1. If the point about the flags gets average Kiwis passionate against the TPPA how can this be bad thing?
2. DUE AUTHORITY two simple words.
Everu one understands the concept of “due process” how it apply to the law this is same concept but relates to the issue of authority as it stands in the social contract between a people and their state.
Under whose authority is this deal being signed?
Under whose authority do our courts answer to?
Under whose authority is our constitutional authority currently interpreted ?
Our flag is simply a symbolic answer to all theses question.
If you chance one these things it does not change a great deal.
Yet if you change all of them – then yes it changes the very nature of what DUE AUTHORITY means and that has huge consequences in relation to the TPPA even being legally binding under NZ law if we sign it. THE ORIGINS OF HERALDRY; A flag is much more than cloth – its a symbol of where an agent draws it authority – upon who name they serve and to whom they answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_heraldry
http://www.norepublic.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=35&Itemid=39
( is it not interesting to see how keen the pro TPPA Republicans are to also change flags in Australia too)”
Slippery
That Vigden link that you quote extensively is barely comprehensible gibberish. The main gist seems to be; that it doesn’t matter if what he said regarding DUE AUTHORITY is as fabricated as the phrase itself, the deception is justified by the rightness of his cause. Everyone who points out the flaws in his (let’s be generous and call them;) arguments, is an enemy to be railed against:
So let’s look at some of those critics, first Andrew Geddis:
http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/my-sole-contribution-to-the-great-flag-conspiracy
Matthew Dentith addresses the main flaws in Vigden’s assertions:
http://all-embracing.episto.org/2015/09/07/with-due-deference-the-due-authority-flag-conspiracy-theory-is-rubbish/
Vigden and Slippery seem to ascribe to ascribe (along with Slater and other Dirty Politics types) to the concept that; the ends justify any means. Even Machiavelli would not agree with this, as the phrase is better translated as; one must choose only those means best suited to achieving ones goals. Selfrighteous deception may appear to be achieving something worthwhile in the short term, but is ultimately selfdefeating.
+100 Slippery to all of your comments
…perception is everything…just look at the Israeli flag over Palestine
a new flag wipes out the OLD NEW ZEALAND and all its values…with something vacuous …a vessel to be filled with content….inwhich jonkey’s name is associated and all the sell outs
…it legitimises the corruption and ongoing corruption of New Zealand
What about the on going costs?
Ever rebranded a business?
I’ll go with Frank’s Spoil & Foil suggestion. Spoil the first vote, support the status quo in the second.
To heck with “red peak”! We need a red flag. A workers’ flag! With all the capitalist running dogs lined up against the bullet riddled wall of justice!
Spoil and foil!
“Labour Party Arts, Culture and Heritage spokesperson Jacinda Ardern said the Flag Consideration Panel gave an advisory group, including two designers, just four hours to give their advice on the flag options.
Official Information Act documents revealed the panel appointed the group just a month before the final four designs were released.
Ms Ardern said that seemed like a token gesture in response to public complaints about a lack of design input in the flag process.
The group, which included a Nike creative director, recommended more geometric designs be included in the long-list.
A spokesperson for the New Zealand Flag Consideration Project confirmed the advisory group had a four-hour meeting with the panel.
She said the panel found the group’s advice constructive and helpful.”
From Radio NZ’s website.
But in an interview on Radio NZ she also stated that it clearly demonstrated a predetermined flag choice. She actually said quite a bit more about lack of transparency and when I can track it down I’ll post a link to it.
Whatever the consequence of that, it is clear that the Opposition seem to have stepped up their attacks on the Government.
Good on them. I hope it works.
Comments are closed.