Post by Kiwi Frontline on Nov 3, 2020 12:29:31 GMT 12
Northland Age 3/11/20
WHO’S RACIST?
Moko Tepania who is an elected Far North District Councillor says “the rules covering the creation of Māori wards are racist, and need to change so councils aren’t put in that situation”. (Waateanews 28/10/20)
Councillor Tepania should ask himself who is being racist – those who advocate a race-based ward, or those who advocate governance without racial components.
New Zealand has citizens from 213 ethnic groups speaking 40 languages.
Therefore, the only governance option that upholds the rights of every citizen is the option that has no racial component.
Any governance system, decision, or arrangement, that is based on race is by definition racist.
Therefore, those who propose Maori wards are actually the racists. Those who uphold the rights of everyone are the anti-racists.
And those councillors who fail to consult their community over a substantial change in governance, and want to remove from their constituents the right to have any say on such a change, simply don’t understand one-person-one-vote democracy.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
SERIOUSLY ADRIFT
Wally Hicks is once again seriously adrift with his “Congratulations” remarks (“Age”, 29/10/20).
For a start, his “racial difference intrinsic in Te Tiriti o Waitangi” is utter nonsense. In fact the precise opposite is the truth. By article third all Maoris received the same, repeat same rights as the people of England. Article second was essentially redundant because article third implied it. The simple answer to his question “Why otherwise have a treaty?” is that by its acceptance the chiefs ceded to the Queen completely and for ever such rights of sovereignty as each possessed. The recorded words of the chiefs who spoke at Waitangi on 5th February and on subsequent occasions make it crystal clear that they understood that by signing they assented to becoming subordinate to the Governor and hence, more so, to the Queen. The Waitangi Tribunal and many others who claim today that sovereignty was not ceded are either blatantly ignorant of the facts or wilfully ignoring them. When these facts of our history are understood and accepted without qualification, then Hicks statement that the treaty “itself, is not inherently racist” is actually correct.
Hicks then chooses to go on about “Native Title”, a perfectly apt name for Maori land held in common by all adult male members of a tribe or sub-tribe, excluding their slaves of course. In the early decades of the colony of New Zealand, the privilege of voting for parliaments in Britain was evolving but required a property qualification and this was applied here too. Because very few Maoris met this qualification, land being held in common under their traditional practice, it was realized that they were under-represented so the four Maori seats were created as a temporary measure with all adult Maori males eligible to vote for them. At this stage the many settlers without a property qualification had no vote so in fact Maoris had a greater privilege, contrary in fact to the expressed words of the treaty!
Now these special Maori seats were intended as a brief temporary measure in the rapidly evolving electoral milieu of the times but through the lack of resolve and political manipulation of successive governments they have evolved to the point today when their number has increased to seven with substantially fewer eligible voters in each than in general electorates. Put simply, Maori seats in parliament today are a monstrous anomaly.
Hicks continues with “the real race-based privilege, evident in the application of Te Tiriti for 180 years.” There are two simple facts of which his ignorance is starkly evident. The first is that the treaty had fulfilled its purpose when Hobson affirmed British sovereignty over the whole of New Zealand in May 1840 and should have been consigned then and there to the archives and history books. To speak of “the application of Te Tiriti” ever since is simply nonsense. The second is that “real race-based privilege” has repeatedly favoured people of part Maori descent, with more than eighty Acts of Parliament, by my count, since 1974 alone, specifically doing so.
There is much to be “made right” (Hicks’ words) in New Zealand today, an urgent necessity being to get rid of the fake “partnership” in no sense implied by the treaty but riddling government with consultative Maoris at every turn. Otherwise we shall very soon find that democracy in New Zealand has been destroyed completely.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
www.kiwifrontline.nz/media/letters-to-the-editor
WHO’S RACIST?
Moko Tepania who is an elected Far North District Councillor says “the rules covering the creation of Māori wards are racist, and need to change so councils aren’t put in that situation”. (Waateanews 28/10/20)
Councillor Tepania should ask himself who is being racist – those who advocate a race-based ward, or those who advocate governance without racial components.
New Zealand has citizens from 213 ethnic groups speaking 40 languages.
Therefore, the only governance option that upholds the rights of every citizen is the option that has no racial component.
Any governance system, decision, or arrangement, that is based on race is by definition racist.
Therefore, those who propose Maori wards are actually the racists. Those who uphold the rights of everyone are the anti-racists.
And those councillors who fail to consult their community over a substantial change in governance, and want to remove from their constituents the right to have any say on such a change, simply don’t understand one-person-one-vote democracy.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
SERIOUSLY ADRIFT
Wally Hicks is once again seriously adrift with his “Congratulations” remarks (“Age”, 29/10/20).
For a start, his “racial difference intrinsic in Te Tiriti o Waitangi” is utter nonsense. In fact the precise opposite is the truth. By article third all Maoris received the same, repeat same rights as the people of England. Article second was essentially redundant because article third implied it. The simple answer to his question “Why otherwise have a treaty?” is that by its acceptance the chiefs ceded to the Queen completely and for ever such rights of sovereignty as each possessed. The recorded words of the chiefs who spoke at Waitangi on 5th February and on subsequent occasions make it crystal clear that they understood that by signing they assented to becoming subordinate to the Governor and hence, more so, to the Queen. The Waitangi Tribunal and many others who claim today that sovereignty was not ceded are either blatantly ignorant of the facts or wilfully ignoring them. When these facts of our history are understood and accepted without qualification, then Hicks statement that the treaty “itself, is not inherently racist” is actually correct.
Hicks then chooses to go on about “Native Title”, a perfectly apt name for Maori land held in common by all adult male members of a tribe or sub-tribe, excluding their slaves of course. In the early decades of the colony of New Zealand, the privilege of voting for parliaments in Britain was evolving but required a property qualification and this was applied here too. Because very few Maoris met this qualification, land being held in common under their traditional practice, it was realized that they were under-represented so the four Maori seats were created as a temporary measure with all adult Maori males eligible to vote for them. At this stage the many settlers without a property qualification had no vote so in fact Maoris had a greater privilege, contrary in fact to the expressed words of the treaty!
Now these special Maori seats were intended as a brief temporary measure in the rapidly evolving electoral milieu of the times but through the lack of resolve and political manipulation of successive governments they have evolved to the point today when their number has increased to seven with substantially fewer eligible voters in each than in general electorates. Put simply, Maori seats in parliament today are a monstrous anomaly.
Hicks continues with “the real race-based privilege, evident in the application of Te Tiriti for 180 years.” There are two simple facts of which his ignorance is starkly evident. The first is that the treaty had fulfilled its purpose when Hobson affirmed British sovereignty over the whole of New Zealand in May 1840 and should have been consigned then and there to the archives and history books. To speak of “the application of Te Tiriti” ever since is simply nonsense. The second is that “real race-based privilege” has repeatedly favoured people of part Maori descent, with more than eighty Acts of Parliament, by my count, since 1974 alone, specifically doing so.
There is much to be “made right” (Hicks’ words) in New Zealand today, an urgent necessity being to get rid of the fake “partnership” in no sense implied by the treaty but riddling government with consultative Maoris at every turn. Otherwise we shall very soon find that democracy in New Zealand has been destroyed completely.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
www.kiwifrontline.nz/media/letters-to-the-editor