The audacity of ACT playing victim over their race baiting referendum
This attempt to paint themselves as the victim by demanding a binary referendum where the prejudices of the majority extinguish the rights of the minority would be funny if it weren’t so ludicrous!
Of course we should have a discussion about the constitutional design of NZ, I’ve been arguing for one for decades, but that’s not what ACT are offering.
They are offering a binary referendum where the majority removes the rights of the minority.
Look, you either have those rights, or you don’t, that is a legal and philosophical debate, but what ACT are demanding is the tyranny of the majority to kill off the rights of the minority.
And then they wonder why their political stunt is generating such furious backlash!
ACT claims no one can point to one thing that he has said or done that is race baiting.
Well allow me to clear that up.
When David released the unique code for Māori to be vaccinated, that was a public health vandalism stunt that he used to race bait Māori.
When he called Opotoki ‘Mogadishu‘, he was race baiting.
When he called gang member behaviour, ‘subhuman’, he was race baiting.
When he claims this…
…he’s race baiting.
When he posted this on Instagram…
…he was race baiting.
When he wants to remove January 2nd as a State Holiday because of ‘Matariki’, he is race baiting!
When he does his pseudo one law for all wank, he is race baiting.
When he looks to amputate all the Ministries that aren’t male and white, he’s race baiting.
Wanting to push for a referendum that renegotiates the the Treaty and then forces it upon Māori is, you guessed it – race baiting!
Let’s have a debate about NZs Constitution, but let’s not pretend a binary referendum on the principles of the Treaty is anything other than raw meat for ACTs redneck voting block.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice going into this pandemic and 2020 election – please donate here.
If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media.
Seymour’s been living under a rock;that discussion has been going on since the Treaty was signed, and more specifically since Waitangi Tribunal Act was passed in 1975.
People far more learned than Seymour have researched, debated, and argued the Rights and the wrongs granted by the treaty. If Seymour is not happy with the outcome, he needs to do the research and take it through the courts like Māori have had to do.
Calling for a binary referendum, pretending that it is not an attempt to overturn all that work is disingenuous at least, and certainly appeals to the rich elitist section of our society who obviously believe their systemic advantages are being put at risk.
To be fair if Seymour wasn’t in Act he’d be in the corrupt National party, it’s what they’re known for.
ACTS proposal is not a referendum on the Treaty, its a referendum on the Treaty “Principles”.
You & Martyn both know this: the principles that don’t exist in the Treaty & were invented a few decades ago by Palmer & Cooke.
RobbieWgtn, how exactly do you think ‘the principals of the Treaty’ can be determined by a binary referendum? How many people have the knowledge to even discuss it in depth? A lot of peoples’ ‘opinions’ are based simply on fear and dare I say it bigotry and misinformation. All decissions by the courts have had to argue their case cognisant of the Treaty wording and interpretation. If ACT don’t like the results, challenge it in the courts. As Luxon has rightly said such a referendum would be divisive and unhelpful.
Oh please RobbieWgtn , do we really need you to repeat the trolling from that idiot christian nationalist batchelor?
Curious what you find objectionable about what RobbieWgtn has said? It’s factually accurate? As far as I can tell Act is trying to define the principles, which parliament never did, and are constantly evolving. The issue with that of course is the inconsistency. Go to different law schools around the country and you’ll be taught a different set of principles. Clearly an issue no?
I don’t think you need a referendum, I think you can just do that with an act of parliament. But a referendum would get public buy-in and hopefully lead us to a more united place going forward. Maybe. Though if Marama Davidson, Willie Jackson and John Tamihere have there way there’ll be a lot of violence, division and misinformation along the way sadly.
Matt, don’t all principals, like history, evolve? Attempting to draft an Act of Parliament that enshrines in a prescriptive sense the supposed ‘principals of the treaty’ would be an exercise in futility; it would quickly become outdated, and it would still be up to the courts to interpret it – so back to square one!
What we need is patience, which is actually a sign of maturity, to let the current process evolve slowly – not a yes/no referendum that ultimately would prove nothing.
Parliament has never acted on any previous citizen referendum simply because the simple yes/no result does not provide solutions.
What we can be sure of is that there are many players, both local and foreign, that would relish a referendum to publish misinformation and stir-up trouble, something we simply do not need if we are looking to have 3 years of stable government.
Matt, you did so well until the last sentence crap…
“Though if Marama Davidson, Willie Jackson and John Tamihere have there way there’ll be a lot of violence, division and misinformation along the way sadly.”
A very divisive statement.
You, yourself are straight from the Brian Tamaki misinformation brochure.
Seymour wants to reduce or remove established treaty conditions so that some people can profit from any change. Call it Principles if you like but it is just greed and mostly by those who have enough already
I look forward to watching the political credibility of this closeted apologist for privilege run in rather short order down though his hands and into the drain .
Standard operating procedure of the fascist and/or mildly populist, or even egotist.
When criticised – play VICTIM.
Pffft. Next
An irony that (saith Wikipedia) he is “of Ngāpuhi Māori descent on his mother’s side”.
Why does he claim descent from any Maori tribe when clearly, he doesn’t value that heritage?
He speaks with forked tongue.
His support during the election campaign, plummeted to almost half what it had been. He has no mandate for any of his policies. If this one is a diversion to enthrall the media, so is everything else he proposes.
Even Epsom voters, surely now, understand what a waste of space he is.
If I lived there, I’d object to being used like that. They are not geniuses of tactical voting, they have been hoodwinked.
Thugs Veto
“Nice little country you have here, it’d be a shame if anything happened to it”
https://democracyproject.substack.com/p/threatening-consequences?utm_campaign=email-post&r=1bwkw&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
I dont really know what this referendum is supposed to achieve besides race baiting.
The referendum question has not been decided so nobody knows.
If David can’t handle the heat then he should get out of the kitchen
Tough talk from the left that couldn’t even boil an egg when in charge.
I’m sure Seymour is hastily scribbling down your advice.
For the last 40 years the “TOW Principles” have evolved by a combination of politicians who didn’t know or care about the consequences of their bills, activist judges who aren’t elected, and a Waitangi Tribunal which has given up any pretence of being neutral and states that they can change their decisions at any time and the country just has to accept it
Given that all Kiwis and their descendents lives are going to be governed by the principles they have to have a say
A referendum on a Bill setting out the principles and their legal meaning is mandatory because it stops the slide to violent unrest.