How a right wing referendum on Treaty Principles could generate conflict in NZ
Defenders for ACT’s referendum on the Treaty Principles claim those suggesting ACT are race baiting or creating conflict are in fact the racists because all those wanting a referendum want is one law for all.
It is a disingenuous argument.
The partnership, participation and protection principles are the enduring legal legacy of attempting to dismantle 19th century European systems of colonialism and control.
By holding a referendum to redefine a legal right is not democratic, it is majoritarianism, the tyranny of the majority.
Māori either have these legal rights or they don’t, it can’t be decided at a whim by the majority!
The audacity and abuse of using a referendum to extinguish the legal rights of the indigenous minority is NOT what New Zealand wants to be about!
A Horizon Research survey conducted for Te Kāhui Tika Tangata Human Rights Commission earlier this month showed that Seventy per cent of New Zealanders believe it is important for Māori and non-Māori to decide together on an equal footing how te Tiriti o Waitangi is honoured and that 80% of New Zealanders think respectful discussion of racial issues is important.
To allow a fringe political party to attempt such a radical and disrespectful attack on the core values of our collective Treaty would inspire a political and cultural backlash the likes of which this country has not seen before.
Vast numbers of Kiwis across the racial and cultural spectrum of this nation would immediately join with Māori to protest against this.
We are a better people than ACT’s referendum dog whistles us to be.
…mass migration and foreign voting rights will help, too…
“Vast numbers of Kiwis across the racial and cultural spectrum of this nation would immediately join with Māori to protest against this.”
Quite right, Martyn, where’s me banner?
More likely it will only be the usual suspects, the same people who join every march.
I could easily list the usual suspects buts it’s so easy to do I won’t bother.
Dream on. Wrong about “partnership….principle(s)” as well.
I think Seymour just wants a redefinition of Article 2, and is quite willing to burn all of NZ to get it.
Then summon Labour’s Geoffrey Bloody Palmer to explain to Cabinet what he meant by the principles of the Treaty. After all, he is Sir Public Law. He done it.
We are yet to see the referendum question so keep your hair on.
I’m not vain enough to shave my head twice a day – like some political ‘leaders!’
Clean shaven versus stubble.
Maybe you suggest one, then we can decide if we consider if everyone is knowledgeable enough to answer it.
Who was Helen Clarke referring to a few years back when she called them ‘ haters and wreckers ‘ …was that the ACT party she was talking about !
She made that comment, on the night Key won 2007 I believe, during her concession speech.
That was best part of 17yrs ago!
A tad more than ‘a few years’.
Well this is sorta part of the coalition deal, in that it’ll go before the select committee. No guarantees after that. I predict there’ll be such an outcry and such virilant opposition that it won’t go any further. I also predict there’ll be several serious legal challenges both on statutory law issues and international law issues, the outcome of at least one will be to squash any future challenges to the status of the treaty and its principles.
Luxon sold out his principals, a referendum would be “devisive and unhelpful”, to get ACT coalition agreement.