PM accused of 'cultural treason' in asset sale dispute

14 Feb 2012 06:52p.m.

Gosh wrote:

Back in the day in a land far far away, witches were burnt and there lands and various assets seized. There has never and will never be any recompense for them. Why??? Because the enlightened refuse to languish in the past, instead they learn form it and evolve.
As far as ’racism’ goes, sure, express it with the intent to demoralise or discriminate against an individual an you are in contempt of common moral code. But, what many don’t understand is that cultural preservation and racism go hand in hand. That goes for White, Black, Brown, whatever.
So my point being that yes, some Maori and Crown incentives are and will always appear racist to the general public, but it will not always be wrong or immoral. As far as the masses go, sometimes common opinion will be wrong, based simply on a lack of comprehension or enlightenment.

14 Feb 2012 12:28p.m.

Mike wrote:

@Clarke, being against racism doesn't make one racist.

Take when Labour sold NZ Rail - no treaty clause in the sale.

Basically there has been no racist treaty clause in sales or partial sales so now Maori are wanting to be paid for water falling from the sky, and to have treaty clauses in anything sold? What would a treaty clause do? Isolate one race for the benefit of that race - thats Racist to anyone with a brain.

Maori are not benefiting from the treaty as it is being abused today. Instead we have a few Maori reaping the benefits and living the high life while generating unhappiness to everyone who is paying for those benefits.

I had a Grandfather who after WWII had land siezed by the crown to give to returned servicemen as one of Labours vote catching schemes. Yes the crown paid for the land at below market value. Today the same land has been developed and is nolonger rural, but part of a city. Does this mean I should be able to put in a claim for what the land is worth today, and make NZ pay for it?

In 1867 Alaska was sold for under $0.02 per acre. Land in 1840 was even cheaper.

What is really being asked for is a perpetual give/give/give/give to Maori on the basis of race. Chinese in NZ have been worse treated than Maori for racism. NZ gave the vote to women and Maori while had it legislated that Chinese couldn't vote. Should we turn around and give/give for those racist actions in the past and make NZ pay for it again forever?

Maori migrated to NZ so like everyone else, they are also immigrants. NZ should not have racist laws giving anything to anyone on a basis of race. We shouldn't have a ministry of Maori Development either as it is a racist ministry when we dont have any other race ministries.

14 Feb 2012 08:25a.m.

Brad wrote:

Time to head back to school Clarke as “basic mathematics” has clearly eluded you.

For starters, to suggest that every single one of the 33% who didn’t vote would not have voted National is simply ridiculous. So using “basic mathematics”, based on the sample size of the 66% who did vote, you would apportion (you may need to look this word up in the dictionary Clarke) the 47% National did receive against 33% who didn’t vote and so giving National a 62.5% majority.

However, this is all a moot point, the governments mandate comes from those who vote. If you choose not to vote, then you lose your ability to complain.

13 Feb 2012 09:43p.m.

Clarke wrote:

@Mike and Brad Election results 66 percent turnout, 33 percnet no vote. 50 percent of 66 percent is 33 percent.... which is what National and its coalition partners got... basic maths... no conspitracy... you guys just like to misrepresent facts. 66 percent of the voting population didnt vote john Key... thats including the 33 percent that stayed home and the 33 percent that the left got. No matter which way you look at it National doesnt have a mandate. But Mike and Brad I know... they are racist to the core.

13 Feb 2012 07:37p.m.

Mike wrote:

@Brad you know Clarke quite well. If you said 'water was wet' Clarke would claim it was as right wing conspiracy!

Not putting a racist clause into a sales agreement is not cultural treason. Maori sold more land than NZ has 2x over pre-treaty and the treaty was to stop that by putting the crown in control and also giving Maori rights as british subjects as part of the british empire. Since 1840 there has been about 7 different rounds of Maori getting stuff just becuase of their race - which is racist. If not for the treaty the british would have used the red coats, slaughtered Maori, and taken NZ for the british empire.

The treaty does not give Maori the right to vote, the right to welfare, or the right to health care. Should we stop all these to comply with the treaty?

13 Feb 2012 08:21a.m.

Brad wrote:

Clarke, as usual, your posts full of grand emotive rubbish and riddled with errors. National actually received 47% of the vote (equating to 59 seats). See:
http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2011/

However, based on your prior posts I have no doubt that you will come back to tell us all that National actually only got 34%, the elections were rigged and the official Electoral Office results are part of some huge right wing conspiracy.

Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Latest-move-to-halt-asset-sales-Maori-own-water/tabid/1607/articleID/242104/Default.aspx#ixzz1mCHOmvtE

12 Feb 2012 06:58p.m.

Clarke wrote:

Funny how hypocritical National party supporters are really... they moaned about what labour did... now that John Key is doing it... its ok? LOL @Aiden... seriously thats just hypocritical. Labour did that... so that makes it ok for National is the entirity of your arguement... yet I assume you hate everything that Labour did?. However the reality is 66 percent of kiwis didnt vote for the current coalition government, National is ruling with 34 percent of the entire eligible vote... thats an elitest minority. If the people want to stop asset sales (the 66 percent who didnt vote for John Key) then they need to call for his resignation.... afterall they are the majority and John Key has no mandate.

12 Feb 2012 03:19p.m.

Steve wrote:

Aiden, 98% of people on the Campbell live poll were against the sale of the farms. To label Labour supporters as 'racists', is nearly as atrocious as your grammer!

The Bush administration brainwashed America using fear tactics. I think the National government used a similar technique to prop up their idiotic plan for asset sales.

12 Feb 2012 10:52a.m.

AaronC wrote:

Question, can we go to the US and buy up farms at will? Can we do so in China? Seems fair to reciprocate the opportunities (or clear and apparent lack of), no?

11 Feb 2012 11:00p.m.

aiden wrote:

its bizare that the racists think john key sold the farms to chinese. typically labour supporters who ignored the record breaking amount of farms sold under labour to asia and russia. lets get facts straight, the government has a set of rules for overseas buyers, if a buyer meets those rules they have to by the law set out approve the sell, if they dont they have to buy law turn the sell down. time some of you labour racists grow up