faye 0 Report post Posted November 11, 2009 you cannot be serious faye If you are you must be as seriously delusional as the destiny cultists Don't talk to me like that -or compare me to them! in about 10 years maybe a little more - we won't have a country - Believe me - - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
closet 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2009 Such a shallow view of such a serious topic probably shows why we need a Race Relations Commisioner. We don't need a South Afrcan Race Relation director and you are the only person who has raised the question. We do however have and need a Race Relations Commisioner and your xenophobic comment is evidence of the need for one. We did have a South African in the job in Gregory Fortuin when it was called the Race Relations Conciliator but the current Commissioner was born in Holland and has spent most of his life in NZ. I stand corrected on Joris then Obi Wan Philocon, all knowing race expert. Nothing xenophbic about questioning the rationality of having a South African controlling race issues, hello!? Yes the issue is serious and offensive to anyone with a European background i feel. My statement should be read with the same passion and honesty that Hone showed... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macduff 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2009 Don't talk to me like that -or compare me to them! in about 10 years maybe a little more - we won't have a country - Believe me - - I agree with you faye. We have already sown the seeds for that senario. The muslims have the madrasahs where the mad mullahs indoctrinate the young into believing the superiority of their beliefs and we have the koanga reos and the "total imersion" schools that indoctrinate their young people into believing their superiority and entitlements as being the tangata whenua. So maybe Winston could be on the right track. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
owen 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2009 Such a shallow view of such a serious topic probably shows why we need a Race Relations Commisioner. We don't need a South Afrcan Race Relation director and you are the only person who has raised the question. We do however have and need a Race Relations Commisioner and your xenophobic comment is evidence of the need for one. We did have a South African in the job in Gregory Fortuin when it was called the Race Relations Conciliator but the current Commissioner was born in Holland and has spent most of his life in NZ. Actually Phil,what's good for the goose SHOULD BE good for the gander.You cannot seriously expect to have tolerance between races when there are two sets of rules.......one for blacks and another for whites.This is what started the problem of racism way,way back.Or had you for gotten about that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overdale 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2009 Actually Phil,what's good for the goose SHOULD BE good for the gander.You cannot seriously expect to have tolerance between races when there are two sets of rules.......one for blacks and another for whites.This is what started the problem of racism way,way back.Or had you for gotten about that? Phil is one of the very,very left leaning types who sound much like Phil Goff.never really saying anything substantial but always has plenty to say! What has transpired since Hone put his big foot in it is very interesting. Some Maori won't commit themselves to supporting hone..because..they have at last realised that to support or even fail to criticise him gives 'us whities' the chequered flag to comment likewise.,i.e. the 'mah..cka' phrase is given a big tick!!Any colour you like!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Properispomenon 1 Report post Posted November 12, 2009 Heard a great quip today... 'Hone keeps on about us "white motherf...ers" - but just which mother is it we whites are alleged to have f...ed? Surely not his own mother? Even a 30 year old virgin would have more class than do the act with her...' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
faye 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2009 I agree with you faye. We have already sown the seeds for that senario. The muslims have the madrasahs where the mad mullahs indoctrinate the young into believing the superiority of their beliefs and we have the koanga reos and the "total imersion" schools that indoctrinate their young people into believing their superiority and entitlements as being the tangata whenua. So maybe Winston could be on the right track. Thankyou - It's not just myself that wants Winston back - It's every one I talk with - Would he put up with what's happening down at the Beehive - NO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Noblet 2 Report post Posted November 12, 2009 Goodbye Hone or was it John Hatfield. No room in NZ politics for your divisive views. John Key was bold enough to eliminate Winston from any coalition deal, pre-election, because of the ongoing sideshows. So you got no chance Hone, and rightly so too. This is probably THE major turning point for the Maori Party, and so far they seem to have understood that Hone and his views are incompatible with making progress. That Joris fella needs to be the next to consider his options, because he got it wrong initially also. I have just read through part 1 of the Maori Party Constitution and had to laugh at the definition of one of the "corner stones" of their culture. RANGATIRATANGA ( it sure doesn't apply to the latest buffoon),Google Maori Party and try and understand the constitution,it's all based on what the Maori activists like to call their spiritual side and their links with Mother Earth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommo Reid 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2009 I agree with you faye. We have already sown the seeds for that senario. The muslims have the madrasahs where the mad mullahs indoctrinate the young into believing the superiority of their beliefs and we have the koanga reos and the "total imersion" schools that indoctrinate their young people into believing their superiority and entitlements as being the tangata whenua. So maybe Winston could be on the right track. Kohanga Reo is certainly NOT a function to ensure the belief of superiority and entitlements as being Tangata Whenua. Kohanga Reo was developed in order to rescue the endangered Maori language and it provides support for one of the most basic human rights, that is the right to speak your own language... and lets not forget that Kohanga Reo is open to EVERY New Zealander, regardless of race. History dictates that we, including our Government, expected Maori to learn the ways of Pakeha in order to achieve cultural integration. However, very few Pakeha were prepared to contribute to this integration process by learning the customs and language of Maori. Today, we are seeing a correction of this thinking that really does need to happen. Although a few may feel threatened by it, Kohanga Reo is a fantastic tool to ensure the continuation of Maori custom/language and the ultimate goal of a bilingual and multicultural nation is reached. Reading through this thread and a couple of others, it is perhaps unsuprising that a common theme has developed on these boards that Pakeha are defined by what they do as indviduals yet it seems individual Maori are viewed as representatitive of an entire race. Harawira possibly guilty of this above definition himself in his email to Mikaere. I believe Harawira does NOT deserve to be in Parliament. If his Paris sojourn isn't enough in itself to see him go, his justification for the trip certainly is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Properispomenon 1 Report post Posted November 12, 2009 This was in my e-mail today: President Obama was invited to address a major gathering of the American Indian Nation two weeks ago in upstate New York. He spoke for almost an hour about his plans for increasing every Native American Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2009 Graeme is that link with Mother Earth or Motherf**ker earth?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philocon 1 Report post Posted November 12, 2009 I stand corrected on Joris then Obi Wan Philocon, all knowing race expert. Nothing xenophbic about questioning the rationality of having a South African controlling race issues, hello!? Yes the issue is serious and offensive to anyone with a European background i feel. My statement should be read with the same passion and honesty that Hone showed... Abuse is a common last resort when one runs out of reasonable argument. If you think it's not xenophobic to debar certain nationalities from applying for certain jobs because of their nationality then what would you call it. Why should the issue be serious only for "... anyone with a European background..." If you left that qualification out I'd agree with you assuming the offensive part is the comments not the issue. Shallow thinking can still be serious on the part of the person doing the thinking. I read all comments seriously but only the writer knows how much "passion & seriousness" is intended. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philocon 1 Report post Posted November 12, 2009 Actually Phil,what's good for the goose SHOULD BE good for the gander.You cannot seriously expect to have tolerance between races when there are two sets of rules.......one for blacks and another for whites.This is what started the problem of racism way,way back.Or had you for gotten about that? There are not two sets of rules and it was not what started racism way back as you put it. What causes racism is a belief of inherent superiority of your own over another and acting to put in that into practice resulting in discrimination and oppression of one group by another on things as superficial as skin colour, genetic background etc. The race relations aspect of the HR Act applies to all races equally. Where the problem is arising is that some people don't accept a ruling when they don't like the outcome or others not coming to terms with changes that have put right years of inequalities and usurpation of certain rights. Or wanting to impose definitions by popular demand to suit the occasion rather what has been long accepted as the agreed & established definition of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philocon 1 Report post Posted November 12, 2009 Phil is one of the very,very left leaning types who sound much like Phil Goff.never really saying anything substantial but always has plenty to say! What has transpired since Hone put his big foot in it is very interesting. Some Maori won't commit themselves to supporting hone..because..they have at last realised that to support or even fail to criticise him gives 'us whities' the chequered flag to comment likewise.,i.e. the 'mah..cka' phrase is given a big tick!!Any colour you like!! Strange logic that shows more of your political leanings than any consistent rational approach on this issue. People are so desperate to prove I support what Harawira said that they take to misrepresenting what I have said. What I have said is no different to what many others have said. There is no excuse for or acceptability for any of what he has done or said. I won't repeat indefinitely the many adjectives I have used to condemn what he said. The only point of contention is in the definition of what is racist and I find that many people do not really have an understanding of what racism is and confuse it with chauvinism, rudeness, racialism, xenophobia, their objection to treaty settlements and many other related matters. Your perception of so called "whities" vs other groups and reference to 'chequered flags' says more about your attitude to race relations than anything. It is not about competition but tolerance and seeking solutions. Many Maori have never supported Hone and it is wrong to assume they all have. There never has been a Pan Maori position. They like Pakeha and other groups such as Asians and Pacific Islanders comprise many different tribal and other groupings all with different views. While Te Tokerau voted for Hone, many in Te Tokerau did not choosing Labour, even National and a few other options. Likewise in other electorates and many voted for other than the MP on the list. The Maori party is split over continuing support for him as well. It is not that different from MPs that have been cut adrift from other parties in the past across the spectrum. Fighting and understanding racism should have nothing to do with how left or right you are but about tackling injustice and restoring rights and entitlements. When people resort to such tactics it says something of their understanding of the issue rather than the person they are attacking. While extreme racism has often been associated with the far right, there have been good people on the centre, right & left of the spectrum who have fought long and hard against racism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philocon 1 Report post Posted November 13, 2009 Goodbye Hone or was it John Hatfield. No room in NZ politics for your divisive views. John Key was bold enough to eliminate Winston from any coalition deal, pre-election, because of the ongoing sideshows. So you got no chance Hone, and rightly so too. This is probably THE major turning point for the Maori Party, and so far they seem to have understood that Hone and his views are incompatible with making progress. That Joris fella needs to be the next to consider his options, because he got it wrong initially also. If you believe that Key would have stuck to any decision to not do a deal with Peters if he had too then you really are naieve . Political parties make coalition arrangements based on the necessity of forming stable govts and the fact the Peters participated in every govt from MMP till the party left Parliament despite every party at some stage stating they would never go into coalition with him proves that. It's not whether the MP understands whether Harawira's views are compatible or not, it's that he has finally crossed a line and his behaviour can no longer be tolerated. As for des Bres he never got it wrong. What he said has happened. He said it was for the Maori Party to resolve. He ruled that what Harawira said was racially divisive and unacceptable and all the other adjectives many people have used. His interpretation of racism may have differed from yours but that doesn't make it wrong. He also ruled that Harawira had not broken the law and no one has yet proven he did. However, that doesn't make what Harawira said and did right. I see that Sharples and Turia at a press conference this morning backed the MP president in saying that Hone should be kicked out of the MP; stating he was already acting and behaving as an independent member of parliament. So it is reaslly now only a matter of time before he becomes an independent outside of the MP. Maybe the MP is heading for a similar fight that divided the Labour Party in 1980, when Gerald OBrien was ousted and replaced with Frank O'Flynn in a bitter fight between the party HO and the electorate; or a similar split in National in Pakuranga some years ago - I think Downey was that MP's name if my memory serves me right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Properispomenon 1 Report post Posted November 13, 2009 Agreed, Hesi... Phil clearly can't get his head around the (admittedly-novel) idea that a modern day New Zealand leader might actually mean what (s)he says... John Key was quite clear that, even it had meant Labour staying in power, Winston was not a factor for him... That less than 5% subsequently voted for Winston First showed just how shrewd that call was. It effectively tainted Labour because, of course, Helen Clark dared not say the same thing... Come the run-up to the 2011 election - and if Winston is still around, something I fondly hope will not be the case - all John Key has to do to show just how shonky Labour is will be to say 'Okay, Labour, Winston will not be part of any coalition I lead. Will you say the same?' Labour will say no such thing - because they are fast running out of coalition allies. John is really sitting pretty, lol - the Greens have written themselves out of play with their (idiotic) 'We will only ally ourselves with Labour'; Labour, frankly, are a basket case and everyone knows the only reason Phil Goff is still there is that his eventual replacement doesn't want to lose the next election, and National has all of the other parties (Jim Anderton excluded) in on their side... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Noblet 2 Report post Posted November 13, 2009 ....... As for des Bres he never got it wrong. What he said has happened. He said it was for the Maori Party to resolve. He ruled that what Harawira said was racially divisive and unacceptable and all the other adjectives many people have used. His interpretation of racism may have differed from yours but that doesn't make it wrong. He also ruled that Harawira had not broken the law and no one has yet proven he did. However, that doesn't make what Harawira said and did right. .... QUOTE] de Bres DID get things wrong in the first instance,he said that the comments were not racist and later after many complaints he said it could be racist;his interpretationof racism differs from (dare I say) the majority of New Zealanders of all races. You say that de bres mentioned that what Harawira said was divisive and unacceptable and yet he stated it was not unlawful.If it was divisive etc then it should have been deemed unlawful,but with this de Bres character heading such a politically correct organization,what is to be expected. It is the vitriol contained in Harawiras remarks that make them so offensive and racist. Phil,do you think it racist for differing races NOT to want to know about anothers culture,for example I may not want to know anything about Maori (or any other culture) I may consider such culture completely useless to me or to my lifestyle in the modern world and don't want to know anything about it - would that be racist?If so,there are a lot of racists here - and I don't believe there are,I DO believe that the majority of people just want to be New Zealanders and NOT Aotearoa-ians. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macduff 0 Report post Posted November 13, 2009 Kohanga Reo is certainly NOT a function to ensure the belief of superiority and entitlements as being Tangata Whenua. Kohanga Reo was developed in order to rescue the endangered Maori language and it provides support for one of the most basic human rights, that is the right to speak your own language... and lets not forget that Kohanga Reo is open to EVERY New Zealander, regardless of race. History dictates that we, including our Government, expected Maori to learn the ways of Pakeha in order to achieve cultural integration. However, very few Pakeha were prepared to contribute to this integration process by learning the customs and language of Maori. Today, we are seeing a correction of this thinking that really does need to happen. Although a few may feel threatened by it, Kohanga Reo is a fantastic tool to ensure the continuation of Maori custom/language and the ultimate goal of a bilingual and multicultural nation is reached. Reading through this thread and a couple of others, it is perhaps unsuprising that a common theme has developed on these boards that Pakeha are defined by what they do as indviduals yet it seems individual Maori are viewed as representatitive of an entire race. Harawira possibly guilty of this above definition himself in his email to Mikaere. I believe Harawira does NOT deserve to be in Parliament. If his Paris sojourn isn't enough in itself to see him go, his justification for the trip certainly is. Do you really believe that the kohanga reos are only about teaching the maori language? Do you really believe that a group of young pupils at a maori language school would decide of their own volition to write a letter to the mayor of Wanganui to object to his stand on the subject of adding an H to the towns name? Hello how many of those kids would even know where Wanganui was ? This is a blatent example of teachers at these schools indoctrinating their pupils into the grievence band wagon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
teletubby 1 Report post Posted November 13, 2009 watching the news and they had a tape of hone saying.. Quote.... I don't give a **** what the people of nz think I only care about the people of...... think give me a gun.... they shoot horses when they are in a bad way..... this bloke needs one right between the eyes..... man what a tosser. no wonder nz people can not be one. with losers like him at the helm. goPCboygo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
owen 0 Report post Posted November 13, 2009 There are not two sets of rules and it was not what started racism way back as you put it. What causes racism is a belief of inherent superiority of your own over another and acting to put in that into practice resulting in discrimination and oppression of one group by another on things as superficial as skin colour, genetic background etc. The race relations aspect of the HR Act applies to all races equally. Where the problem is arising is that some people don't accept a ruling when they don't like the outcome or others not coming to terms with changes that have put right years of inequalities and usurpation of certain rights. Or wanting to impose definitions by popular demand to suit the occasion rather what has been long accepted as the agreed & established definition of it. Rubbish,Phil. There is one reason alone why this debate even exists and you know it.Racism is the same as it was when Christ played full-back and they still haven't got over that one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philocon 1 Report post Posted November 16, 2009 Rubbish,Phil. There is one reason alone why this debate even exists and you know it.Racism is the same as it was when Christ played full-back and they still haven't got over that one. If you label every racially charged comment as racism you get such debates. Some racially charged comments are just as offensive and unacceptable as many blatantly racist ones like Harawira's. That doesn't excuse or exonerate him one bit. A parallel would be a bit like like calling everyone who espouses far right views or some libertarians as fascist when in fact they may not be. likewise authoritarians and totalitarians often get labelled as communist or fascist when they are not necessarily the same thing. Some are ideologically and or philosophically based, others are just based on pragmatism, opportunism or power. Sometimes two or more coincide. But they are not all the same. As I mentioned many things are called racist that are not but are equally unacceptable and vice versa. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAIGHT STRIKE 37 Report post Posted November 29, 2009 If you label every racially charged comment as racism you get such debates. Some racially charged comments are just as offensive and unacceptable as many blatantly racist ones like Harawira's. That doesn't excuse or exonerate him one bit. A parallel would be a bit like like calling everyone who espouses far right views or some libertarians as fascist when in fact they may not be. likewise authoritarians and totalitarians often get labelled as communist or fascist when they are not necessarily the same thing. Some are ideologically and or philosophically based, others are just based on pragmatism, opportunism or power. Sometimes two or more coincide. But they are not all the same. As I mentioned many things are called racist that are not but are equally unacceptable and vice versa. Thought i would "come over to your table and have coffee with you, you B.C. Are you a mate of Hone"s because you are basically condoning his rubbish big time talk. And to have the cheek to go and hire a White Mother.......... lawyer to say "im sorry,please keep me in the white Mother........ government" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philocon 1 Report post Posted November 30, 2009 Thought i would "come over to your table and have coffee with you, you B.C. Are you a mate of Hone"s because you are basically condoning his rubbish big time talk. And to have the cheek to go and hire a White Mother.......... lawyer to say "im sorry,please keep me in the white Mother........ government" Imitating Harawira's style is hardly the way to condemn his comments. In fact there are numerous cliches around that equate imitation with flattery. I have never met Harawira (it is you who uses his first name indicating that your relationship with him is closer than mine.). If you were to "come over to my table" you would be sent on your way as I prefer to talk to & share a coffee with people who can debate reasonably and at least hear (or read) what people say. I have never condoned what Harawira has said or did, in fact I have strongly criticised it. But it is useful to ignore parts of posts that get in the way of any claims you want to make. There is a difference between offensive, unacceptable language and behaviour, racially divisive and offensive language and racism. None are acceptable but they are not the same either. Because I don't accept your's or other simplistic definition of racism seems in your view to mean I have to agree with and condone all he says & does. Likewise because I happen to agree that many white settlers and some subsequently were past exploiters of Maori and a record of behaving badly you assume that I also agree with and condone his use of expletives, offensive language, use of such precedents to justify his behaviour etc. To condemn what Harawira has said and done does not mean I have to accept your view of the world in the process and thankfully I haven't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAIGHT STRIKE 37 Report post Posted November 30, 2009 Imitating Harawira's style is hardly the way to condemn his comments. In fact there are numerous cliches around that equate imitation with flattery. I have never met Harawira (it is you who uses his first name indicating that your relationship with him is closer than mine.). If you were to "come over to my table" you would be sent on your way as I prefer to talk to & share a coffee with people who can debate reasonably and at least hear (or read) what people say. I have never condoned what Harawira has said or did, in fact I have strongly criticised it. But it is useful to ignore parts of posts that get in the way of any claims you want to make. There is a difference between offensive, unacceptable language and behaviour, racially divisive and offensive language and racism. None are acceptable but they are not the same either. Because I don't accept your's or other simplistic definition of racism seems in your view to mean I have to agree with and condone all he says & does. Likewise because I happen to agree that many white settlers and some subsequently were past exploiters of Maori and a record of behaving badly you assume that I also agree with and condone his use of expletives, offensive language, use of such precedents to justify his behaviour etc. To condemn what Harawira has said and done does not mean I have to accept your view of the world in the process and thankfully I haven't. should be sacked. NZ as 1 country 1 people to move forward is the only way(and that is smart)...nothing more nothing less...keep promoting seperatism and that is the way it will continue to be,a divided country,and what country has thrived with that...no long winded answers PhiloCON just the facts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunlineboy 131 Report post Posted November 30, 2009 Agreed SS. Maori's always saying they wanted to be treated as equals, yet they are the ones promoting segregation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaceCafe News