So now we get to the real contest: The Maori Party and the Labour
Maori caucus dealing with Maori in ACT and National. It is 'us' vs
'not us' or 'us' vs 'fake Maori'. On one side we have the Maori Party
MPs (both of them) and the Labour Maori Caucus (led by Willie
Jackson), against Karen Chhour, David Seymour and Winston Peters
amongst other Maori that are MPs for National or ACT.

If ever we can see how Maori remain very tribal in some respects this
is it - real Maori cannot be members of National or ACT according to
the Maori Party and Labour.

The reality is that Maori, like those of all other ethnic groups, can
be of equal conviction regardless of political persuasion. Neither
the Maori Party nor Labour can lay claim to be the rightful
representatives of 'Maoridom'.

In NZ, there are some of us who can trace our forbears back to some
Maori, but there are none of us who can trace our forbears back to
Maori exclusively (ie in every generation). So anyone who currently
identifies as Maori is in fact part-Maori. I acknowledge that this is
based on mathematical probability, but I challenge anyone to prove
that anyone who identifies as Maori can trace their forbears as
exclusively descended to Maori of pre-European times.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 20:14:34 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:

So now we get to the real contest: The Maori Party and the Labour
Maori caucus dealing with Maori in ACT and National. It is 'us' vs
'not us' or 'us' vs 'fake Maori'. On one side we have the Maori Party
MPs (both of them) and the Labour Maori Caucus (led by Willie
Jackson), against Karen Chhour, David Seymour and Winston Peters
amongst other Maori that are MPs for National or ACT.

If ever we can see how Maori remain very tribal in some respects this
is it - real Maori cannot be members of National or ACT according to
the Maori Party and Labour.

The reality is that Maori, like those of all other ethnic groups, can
be of equal conviction regardless of political persuasion. Neither
the Maori Party nor Labour can lay claim to be the rightful
representatives of 'Maoridom'.

In NZ, there are some of us who can trace our forbears back to some
Maori, but there are none of us who can trace our forbears back to
Maori exclusively (ie in every generation). So anyone who currently >identifies as Maori is in fact part-Maori. I acknowledge that this is
based on mathematical probability, but I challenge anyone to prove
that anyone who identifies as Maori can trace their forbears as
exclusively descended to Maori of pre-European times.

So racial identity may differ from genetic identity and both may have
different political views. I have not heard any suggestion that real
Maori (whatever that means) cannot be members of National or ACT other
than from you above Crash - there have clearly been prominent Maori in
the National Party in the past, and I can not see why that may not be
the case now or in the future, or for ACT. Are you creating artificial
racial divisions for political purposes?

Now some policies may be favoured by some groups and not others, but
that is normal politics. Creating artificial racist arguments is
however generally regarded as not being helpful - the
misinterpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, and your attempt above to
foment racial divisions relating to representation could be seen in
that way.

I can remember people in my family that identified as British - as
indeed they were for most of their lives; generally those born in New
Zealand post war identify as New Zealanders. Does it matter?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 22:41:02 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

So racial identity may differ from genetic identity ...

“Race” is not a scientific concept.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 22:41:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 20:14:34 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:

So now we get to the real contest: The Maori Party and the Labour
Maori caucus dealing with Maori in ACT and National. It is 'us' vs
'not us' or 'us' vs 'fake Maori'. On one side we have the Maori Party
MPs (both of them) and the Labour Maori Caucus (led by Willie
Jackson), against Karen Chhour, David Seymour and Winston Peters
amongst other Maori that are MPs for National or ACT.

If ever we can see how Maori remain very tribal in some respects this
is it - real Maori cannot be members of National or ACT according to
the Maori Party and Labour.

The reality is that Maori, like those of all other ethnic groups, can
be of equal conviction regardless of political persuasion. Neither
the Maori Party nor Labour can lay claim to be the rightful
representatives of 'Maoridom'.

In NZ, there are some of us who can trace our forbears back to some
Maori, but there are none of us who can trace our forbears back to
Maori exclusively (ie in every generation). So anyone who currently >>identifies as Maori is in fact part-Maori. I acknowledge that this is >>based on mathematical probability, but I challenge anyone to prove
that anyone who identifies as Maori can trace their forbears as
exclusively descended to Maori of pre-European times.

So racial identity may differ from genetic identity and both may have >different political views. I have not heard any suggestion that real
Maori (whatever that means) cannot be members of National or ACT other
than from you above Crash - there have clearly been prominent Maori in
the National Party in the past, and I can not see why that may not be
the case now or in the future, or for ACT. Are you creating artificial
racial divisions for political purposes?

Not me, but Willie Jackson clearly has on several occasions. This is
not about racial division but about some Maori suggesting violent
responses to other Maori in a different political party.

Now some policies may be favoured by some groups and not others, but
that is normal politics. Creating artificial racist arguments is
however generally regarded as not being helpful - the
misinterpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, and your attempt above to
foment racial divisions relating to representation could be seen in
that way.

None of which has anything to do with this thread.

I can remember people in my family that identified as British - as
indeed they were for most of their lives; generally those born in New
Zealand post war identify as New Zealanders. Does it matter?

Irrelevant. This is not about you, it is purely about Maori MPs
denigrating other Maori MPs in Parliament.

Now I am not going to bother to provide cites Rich. That requires
time and effort on my behalf which is a waste of time with you.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 22:05:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<[email protected]d> wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 22:41:02 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

So racial identity may differ from genetic identity ...

�Race� is not a scientific concept.

Certainly the word is often mis-used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 10:41:14 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 22:41:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 20:14:34 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:

So now we get to the real contest: The Maori Party and the Labour
Maori caucus dealing with Maori in ACT and National. It is 'us' vs
'not us' or 'us' vs 'fake Maori'. On one side we have the Maori Party
MPs (both of them) and the Labour Maori Caucus (led by Willie
Jackson), against Karen Chhour, David Seymour and Winston Peters
amongst other Maori that are MPs for National or ACT.

If ever we can see how Maori remain very tribal in some respects this
is it - real Maori cannot be members of National or ACT according to
the Maori Party and Labour.

The reality is that Maori, like those of all other ethnic groups, can
be of equal conviction regardless of political persuasion. Neither
the Maori Party nor Labour can lay claim to be the rightful >>>representatives of 'Maoridom'.

In NZ, there are some of us who can trace our forbears back to some >>>Maori, but there are none of us who can trace our forbears back to
Maori exclusively (ie in every generation). So anyone who currently >>>identifies as Maori is in fact part-Maori. I acknowledge that this is >>>based on mathematical probability, but I challenge anyone to prove
that anyone who identifies as Maori can trace their forbears as >>>exclusively descended to Maori of pre-European times.

So racial identity may differ from genetic identity and both may have >>different political views. I have not heard any suggestion that real
Maori (whatever that means) cannot be members of National or ACT other
than from you above Crash - there have clearly been prominent Maori in
the National Party in the past, and I can not see why that may not be
the case now or in the future, or for ACT. Are you creating artificial >>racial divisions for political purposes?

Not me, but Willie Jackson clearly has on several occasions. This is
not about racial division but about some Maori suggesting violent
responses to other Maori in a different political party.

Now some policies may be favoured by some groups and not others, but
that is normal politics. Creating artificial racist arguments is
however generally regarded as not being helpful - the
misinterpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, and your attempt above to >>foment racial divisions relating to representation could be seen in
that way.

None of which has anything to do with this thread.

I can remember people in my family that identified as British - as
indeed they were for most of their lives; generally those born in New >>Zealand post war identify as New Zealanders. Does it matter?

Irrelevant. This is not about you, it is purely about Maori MPs
denigrating other Maori MPs in Parliament.

Now I am not going to bother to provide cites Rich. That requires
time and effort on my behalf which is a waste of time with you.

Not a cite but:

https://tinyurl.com/2b7zz4fb

I hope that the Maori Party and Labour Maori MPs in particular, are
shown this article and read it.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 06 Aug 2024 08:02:56 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 10:41:14 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 22:41:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 20:14:34 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:

So now we get to the real contest: The Maori Party and the Labour
Maori caucus dealing with Maori in ACT and National. It is 'us' vs >>>>'not us' or 'us' vs 'fake Maori'. On one side we have the Maori Party >>>>MPs (both of them) and the Labour Maori Caucus (led by Willie
Jackson), against Karen Chhour, David Seymour and Winston Peters >>>>amongst other Maori that are MPs for National or ACT.

If ever we can see how Maori remain very tribal in some respects this >>>>is it - real Maori cannot be members of National or ACT according to >>>>the Maori Party and Labour.

The reality is that Maori, like those of all other ethnic groups, can >>>>be of equal conviction regardless of political persuasion. Neither
the Maori Party nor Labour can lay claim to be the rightful >>>>representatives of 'Maoridom'.

In NZ, there are some of us who can trace our forbears back to some >>>>Maori, but there are none of us who can trace our forbears back to >>>>Maori exclusively (ie in every generation). So anyone who currently >>>>identifies as Maori is in fact part-Maori. I acknowledge that this is >>>>based on mathematical probability, but I challenge anyone to prove
that anyone who identifies as Maori can trace their forbears as >>>>exclusively descended to Maori of pre-European times.

So racial identity may differ from genetic identity and both may have >>>different political views. I have not heard any suggestion that real >>>Maori (whatever that means) cannot be members of National or ACT other >>>than from you above Crash - there have clearly been prominent Maori in >>>the National Party in the past, and I can not see why that may not be
the case now or in the future, or for ACT. Are you creating artificial >>>racial divisions for political purposes?

Not me, but Willie Jackson clearly has on several occasions. This is
not about racial division but about some Maori suggesting violent
responses to other Maori in a different political party.

Now some policies may be favoured by some groups and not others, but
that is normal politics. Creating artificial racist arguments is
however generally regarded as not being helpful - the
misinterpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, and your attempt above to >>>foment racial divisions relating to representation could be seen in
that way.

None of which has anything to do with this thread.

I can remember people in my family that identified as British - as
indeed they were for most of their lives; generally those born in New >>>Zealand post war identify as New Zealanders. Does it matter?

Irrelevant. This is not about you, it is purely about Maori MPs >>denigrating other Maori MPs in Parliament.

Now I am not going to bother to provide cites Rich. That requires
time and effort on my behalf which is a waste of time with you.

Not a cite but:

https://tinyurl.com/2b7zz4fb

I hope that the Maori Party and Labour Maori MPs in particular, are
shown this article and read it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 06 Aug 2024 08:02:56 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 10:41:14 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 22:41:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 20:14:34 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:

So now we get to the real contest: The Maori Party and the Labour
Maori caucus dealing with Maori in ACT and National. It is 'us' vs >>>>'not us' or 'us' vs 'fake Maori'. On one side we have the Maori Party >>>>MPs (both of them) and the Labour Maori Caucus (led by Willie
Jackson), against Karen Chhour, David Seymour and Winston Peters >>>>amongst other Maori that are MPs for National or ACT.

If ever we can see how Maori remain very tribal in some respects this >>>>is it - real Maori cannot be members of National or ACT according to >>>>the Maori Party and Labour.

The reality is that Maori, like those of all other ethnic groups, can >>>>be of equal conviction regardless of political persuasion. Neither
the Maori Party nor Labour can lay claim to be the rightful >>>>representatives of 'Maoridom'.

In NZ, there are some of us who can trace our forbears back to some >>>>Maori, but there are none of us who can trace our forbears back to >>>>Maori exclusively (ie in every generation). So anyone who currently >>>>identifies as Maori is in fact part-Maori. I acknowledge that this is >>>>based on mathematical probability, but I challenge anyone to prove
that anyone who identifies as Maori can trace their forbears as >>>>exclusively descended to Maori of pre-European times.

So racial identity may differ from genetic identity and both may have >>>different political views. I have not heard any suggestion that real >>>Maori (whatever that means) cannot be members of National or ACT other >>>than from you above Crash - there have clearly been prominent Maori in >>>the National Party in the past, and I can not see why that may not be
the case now or in the future, or for ACT. Are you creating artificial >>>racial divisions for political purposes?

Not me, but Willie Jackson clearly has on several occasions. This is
not about racial division but about some Maori suggesting violent
responses to other Maori in a different political party.

Now some policies may be favoured by some groups and not others, but
that is normal politics. Creating artificial racist arguments is
however generally regarded as not being helpful - the
misinterpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, and your attempt above to >>>foment racial divisions relating to representation could be seen in
that way.

None of which has anything to do with this thread.

I can remember people in my family that identified as British - as
indeed they were for most of their lives; generally those born in New >>>Zealand post war identify as New Zealanders. Does it matter?

Irrelevant. This is not about you, it is purely about Maori MPs >>denigrating other Maori MPs in Parliament.

Now I am not going to bother to provide cites Rich. That requires
time and effort on my behalf which is a waste of time with you.

Not a cite but:

https://tinyurl.com/2b7zz4fb

I hope that the Maori Party and Labour Maori MPs in particular, are
shown this article and read it.

In any other context, Tony would respond to your post by accusing you
of being "Off-Topic!" which is his go-to defence when he needs to
avoid fair discussion. I suspect however that your post was a
deliberate attempt to create a conversation in which that sort of
partisan political attack could be used. The article by Heather Roy
does demonstrate the hypocrisy of the ACT support for "Free Speech!" - supported to enable them to excuse just those sort of political
attacks that she was herself demonstrating - while trying to shut down legitimate differences in political views that relate to the removal
of a clause that deals specifically with Maori. Heather Roy is
effectively trying to shut down legitimate arguments against the
removal of that clause, which is in itself specifically linked to the well-being of Maori people - in other words she is trying to deny free
speech.

Sorry Crash, try to find a defender of Karen Chour from elsewhere -
they do exist, but she is being criticised for not, as a Minister of
the Crown, considering the implications of, and justifying the
readily projected detrimental effects of divisive policies she is
being asked to push through that will damage a particular group of New Zealanders who just happen to be Maori.

ACT is one of the most authoritarian political parties; while
pretending to hold liberal ideals. Heather Roy comes from before that artificial affectation, but regardless she cannot be regarded as an
independent commentator.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-08-05, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 06 Aug 2024 08:02:56 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 10:41:14 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 22:41:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 20:14:34 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>wrote:

So now we get to the real contest: The Maori Party and the Labour >>>>>Maori caucus dealing with Maori in ACT and National. It is 'us' vs >>>>>'not us' or 'us' vs 'fake Maori'. On one side we have the Maori Party >>>>>MPs (both of them) and the Labour Maori Caucus (led by Willie >>>>>Jackson), against Karen Chhour, David Seymour and Winston Peters >>>>>amongst other Maori that are MPs for National or ACT.

If ever we can see how Maori remain very tribal in some respects this >>>>>is it - real Maori cannot be members of National or ACT according to >>>>>the Maori Party and Labour.

The reality is that Maori, like those of all other ethnic groups, can >>>>>be of equal conviction regardless of political persuasion. Neither >>>>>the Maori Party nor Labour can lay claim to be the rightful >>>>>representatives of 'Maoridom'.

In NZ, there are some of us who can trace our forbears back to some >>>>>Maori, but there are none of us who can trace our forbears back to >>>>>Maori exclusively (ie in every generation). So anyone who currently >>>>>identifies as Maori is in fact part-Maori. I acknowledge that this is >>>>>based on mathematical probability, but I challenge anyone to prove >>>>>that anyone who identifies as Maori can trace their forbears as >>>>>exclusively descended to Maori of pre-European times.

So racial identity may differ from genetic identity and both may have >>>>different political views. I have not heard any suggestion that real >>>>Maori (whatever that means) cannot be members of National or ACT other >>>>than from you above Crash - there have clearly been prominent Maori in >>>>the National Party in the past, and I can not see why that may not be >>>>the case now or in the future, or for ACT. Are you creating artificial >>>>racial divisions for political purposes?

Not me, but Willie Jackson clearly has on several occasions. This is
not about racial division but about some Maori suggesting violent >>>responses to other Maori in a different political party.

Now some policies may be favoured by some groups and not others, but >>>>that is normal politics. Creating artificial racist arguments is >>>>however generally regarded as not being helpful - the
misinterpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, and your attempt above to >>>>foment racial divisions relating to representation could be seen in >>>>that way.

None of which has anything to do with this thread.

I can remember people in my family that identified as British - as >>>>indeed they were for most of their lives; generally those born in New >>>>Zealand post war identify as New Zealanders. Does it matter?

Irrelevant. This is not about you, it is purely about Maori MPs >>>denigrating other Maori MPs in Parliament.

Now I am not going to bother to provide cites Rich. That requires
time and effort on my behalf which is a waste of time with you.

Not a cite but:

https://tinyurl.com/2b7zz4fb

I hope that the Maori Party and Labour Maori MPs in particular, are
shown this article and read it.

In any other context, Tony would respond to your post by accusing you
of being "Off-Topic!" which is his go-to defence when he needs to
avoid fair discussion.

1) Really, okay, what the heck has Tony's response go to do the topic?

I suspect however that your post was a
deliberate attempt to create a conversation in which that sort of
partisan political attack could be used.

What a conclusion jump.

The article by Heather Roy
does demonstrate the hypocrisy of the ACT support for "Free Speech!" - supported to enable them to excuse just those sort of political
attacks that she was herself demonstrating - while trying to shut down legitimate differences in political views that relate to the removal
of a clause that deals specifically with Maori. Heather Roy is
effectively trying to shut down legitimate arguments against the
removal of that clause, which is in itself specifically linked to the well-being of Maori people - in other words she is trying to deny free speech.

Sorry Crash, try to find a defender of Karen Chour from elsewhere -
they do exist, but she is being criticised for not, as a Minister of
the Crown, considering the implications of, and justifying the
readily projected detrimental effects of divisive policies she is
being asked to push through that will damage a particular group of New Zealanders who just happen to be Maori.

ACT is one of the most authoritarian political parties;

Incorrect again. It is the Maori Party, Greens and Labour Party which
are authoritian in relation to ACT, National and NZF.

while
pretending to hold liberal ideals. Heather Roy comes from before that artificial affectation, but regardless she cannot be regarded as an independent commentator.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 06 Aug 2024 09:09:43 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Aug 2024 08:02:56 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 10:41:14 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 22:41:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 20:14:34 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>wrote:

So now we get to the real contest: The Maori Party and the Labour >>>>>Maori caucus dealing with Maori in ACT and National. It is 'us' vs >>>>>'not us' or 'us' vs 'fake Maori'. On one side we have the Maori Party >>>>>MPs (both of them) and the Labour Maori Caucus (led by Willie >>>>>Jackson), against Karen Chhour, David Seymour and Winston Peters >>>>>amongst other Maori that are MPs for National or ACT.

If ever we can see how Maori remain very tribal in some respects this >>>>>is it - real Maori cannot be members of National or ACT according to >>>>>the Maori Party and Labour.

The reality is that Maori, like those of all other ethnic groups, can >>>>>be of equal conviction regardless of political persuasion. Neither >>>>>the Maori Party nor Labour can lay claim to be the rightful >>>>>representatives of 'Maoridom'.

In NZ, there are some of us who can trace our forbears back to some >>>>>Maori, but there are none of us who can trace our forbears back to >>>>>Maori exclusively (ie in every generation). So anyone who currently >>>>>identifies as Maori is in fact part-Maori. I acknowledge that this is >>>>>based on mathematical probability, but I challenge anyone to prove >>>>>that anyone who identifies as Maori can trace their forbears as >>>>>exclusively descended to Maori of pre-European times.

So racial identity may differ from genetic identity and both may have >>>>different political views. I have not heard any suggestion that real >>>>Maori (whatever that means) cannot be members of National or ACT other >>>>than from you above Crash - there have clearly been prominent Maori in >>>>the National Party in the past, and I can not see why that may not be >>>>the case now or in the future, or for ACT. Are you creating artificial >>>>racial divisions for political purposes?

Not me, but Willie Jackson clearly has on several occasions. This is
not about racial division but about some Maori suggesting violent >>>responses to other Maori in a different political party.

Now some policies may be favoured by some groups and not others, but >>>>that is normal politics. Creating artificial racist arguments is >>>>however generally regarded as not being helpful - the
misinterpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, and your attempt above to >>>>foment racial divisions relating to representation could be seen in >>>>that way.

None of which has anything to do with this thread.

I can remember people in my family that identified as British - as >>>>indeed they were for most of their lives; generally those born in New >>>>Zealand post war identify as New Zealanders. Does it matter?

Irrelevant. This is not about you, it is purely about Maori MPs >>>denigrating other Maori MPs in Parliament.

Now I am not going to bother to provide cites Rich. That requires
time and effort on my behalf which is a waste of time with you.

Not a cite but:

https://tinyurl.com/2b7zz4fb

I hope that the Maori Party and Labour Maori MPs in particular, are
shown this article and read it.

In any other context, Tony would respond to your post by accusing you
of being "Off-Topic!" which is his go-to defence when he needs to
avoid fair discussion.

Your irrelevant conjecture is noted. Did you not have something
relevant to say?

I suspect however that your post was a
deliberate attempt to create a conversation in which that sort of
partisan political attack could be used.

See above.

The article by Heather Roy
does demonstrate the hypocrisy of the ACT support for "Free Speech!" - >supported to enable them to excuse just those sort of political
attacks that she was herself demonstrating - while trying to shut down >legitimate differences in political views that relate to the removal
of a clause that deals specifically with Maori. Heather Roy is
effectively trying to shut down legitimate arguments against the
removal of that clause, which is in itself specifically linked to the >well-being of Maori people - in other words she is trying to deny free >speech.

Sorry Crash, try to find a defender of Karen Chour from elsewhere -
they do exist, but she is being criticised for not, as a Minister of
the Crown, considering the implications of, and justifying the
readily projected detrimental effects of divisive policies she is
being asked to push through that will damage a particular group of New >Zealanders who just happen to be Maori.

ACT is one of the most authoritarian political parties; while
pretending to hold liberal ideals. Heather Roy comes from before that >artificial affectation, but regardless she cannot be regarded as an >independent commentator.

Your ignorance and inability to comprehend what someone says because
they are from the wrong party is demonstrated again. Your repeated
lies about ACT and National are laughable and have been demolished
with rational logic before, but you continue to repeat them.

The fact is that Roy speaks the truth that you cannot ever handle. The
fact that Roy is a past ACT MP is relevant, but your failure to
demolish (even mention) and rational logic to refute what she has said
speaks volumes of your bias. Character assassination, of both people
and party, is all you have.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5 Aug 2024 23:40:29 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2024-08-05, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 06 Aug 2024 08:02:56 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 10:41:14 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 22:41:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 20:14:34 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>wrote:

So now we get to the real contest: The Maori Party and the Labour >>>>>>Maori caucus dealing with Maori in ACT and National. It is 'us' vs >>>>>>'not us' or 'us' vs 'fake Maori'. On one side we have the Maori Party >>>>>>MPs (both of them) and the Labour Maori Caucus (led by Willie >>>>>>Jackson), against Karen Chhour, David Seymour and Winston Peters >>>>>>amongst other Maori that are MPs for National or ACT.

If ever we can see how Maori remain very tribal in some respects this >>>>>>is it - real Maori cannot be members of National or ACT according to >>>>>>the Maori Party and Labour.

The reality is that Maori, like those of all other ethnic groups, can >>>>>>be of equal conviction regardless of political persuasion. Neither >>>>>>the Maori Party nor Labour can lay claim to be the rightful >>>>>>representatives of 'Maoridom'.

In NZ, there are some of us who can trace our forbears back to some >>>>>>Maori, but there are none of us who can trace our forbears back to >>>>>>Maori exclusively (ie in every generation). So anyone who currently >>>>>>identifies as Maori is in fact part-Maori. I acknowledge that this is >>>>>>based on mathematical probability, but I challenge anyone to prove >>>>>>that anyone who identifies as Maori can trace their forbears as >>>>>>exclusively descended to Maori of pre-European times.

So racial identity may differ from genetic identity and both may have >>>>>different political views. I have not heard any suggestion that real >>>>>Maori (whatever that means) cannot be members of National or ACT other >>>>>than from you above Crash - there have clearly been prominent Maori in >>>>>the National Party in the past, and I can not see why that may not be >>>>>the case now or in the future, or for ACT. Are you creating artificial >>>>>racial divisions for political purposes?

Not me, but Willie Jackson clearly has on several occasions. This is >>>>not about racial division but about some Maori suggesting violent >>>>responses to other Maori in a different political party.

Now some policies may be favoured by some groups and not others, but >>>>>that is normal politics. Creating artificial racist arguments is >>>>>however generally regarded as not being helpful - the >>>>>misinterpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, and your attempt above to >>>>>foment racial divisions relating to representation could be seen in >>>>>that way.

None of which has anything to do with this thread.

I can remember people in my family that identified as British - as >>>>>indeed they were for most of their lives; generally those born in New >>>>>Zealand post war identify as New Zealanders. Does it matter?

Irrelevant. This is not about you, it is purely about Maori MPs >>>>denigrating other Maori MPs in Parliament.

Now I am not going to bother to provide cites Rich. That requires
time and effort on my behalf which is a waste of time with you.

Not a cite but:

https://tinyurl.com/2b7zz4fb

I hope that the Maori Party and Labour Maori MPs in particular, are
shown this article and read it.

In any other context, Tony would respond to your post by accusing you
of being "Off-Topic!" which is his go-to defence when he needs to
avoid fair discussion.

1) Really, okay, what the heck has Tony's response go to do the topic?

He is a frequent poster to nz.general that finds many responses to
threads to be Off topic - sufficiently often that it is possible he
uses that claim as an attempt to deflect discussion from facts that
are uncomfortable to him.

I suspect however that your post was a
deliberate attempt to create a conversation in which that sort of
partisan political attack could be used.

What a conclusion jump.

Not a conclusion at all - just a suspicion . . .

The article by Heather Roy
does demonstrate the hypocrisy of the ACT support for "Free Speech!" -
supported to enable them to excuse just those sort of political
attacks that she was herself demonstrating - while trying to shut down
legitimate differences in political views that relate to the removal
of a clause that deals specifically with Maori. Heather Roy is
effectively trying to shut down legitimate arguments against the
removal of that clause, which is in itself specifically linked to the
well-being of Maori people - in other words she is trying to deny free
speech.

Sorry Crash, try to find a defender of Karen Chour from elsewhere -
they do exist, but she is being criticised for not, as a Minister of
the Crown, considering the implications of, and justifying the
readily projected detrimental effects of divisive policies she is
being asked to push through that will damage a particular group of New
Zealanders who just happen to be Maori.

ACT is one of the most authoritarian political parties;

Incorrect again. It is the Maori Party, Greens and Labour Party which
are authoritian in relation to ACT, National and NZF.

I acknowledge your right to hold views that I do not agree with. The
Maori Party, Green Party and Labour Party are authoritative, but the
also less authoritarian than the coalition parties.

while
pretending to hold liberal ideals. Heather Roy comes from before that
artificial affectation, but regardless she cannot be regarded as an
independent commentator.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On 5 Aug 2024 23:40:29 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2024-08-05, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 06 Aug 2024 08:02:56 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 10:41:14 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 22:41:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 20:14:34 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>wrote:

So now we get to the real contest: The Maori Party and the Labour >>>>>>>Maori caucus dealing with Maori in ACT and National. It is 'us' vs >>>>>>>'not us' or 'us' vs 'fake Maori'. On one side we have the Maori Party >>>>>>>MPs (both of them) and the Labour Maori Caucus (led by Willie >>>>>>>Jackson), against Karen Chhour, David Seymour and Winston Peters >>>>>>>amongst other Maori that are MPs for National or ACT.

If ever we can see how Maori remain very tribal in some respects this >>>>>>>is it - real Maori cannot be members of National or ACT according to >>>>>>>the Maori Party and Labour.

The reality is that Maori, like those of all other ethnic groups, can >>>>>>>be of equal conviction regardless of political persuasion. Neither >>>>>>>the Maori Party nor Labour can lay claim to be the rightful >>>>>>>representatives of 'Maoridom'.

In NZ, there are some of us who can trace our forbears back to some >>>>>>>Maori, but there are none of us who can trace our forbears back to >>>>>>>Maori exclusively (ie in every generation). So anyone who currently >>>>>>>identifies as Maori is in fact part-Maori. I acknowledge that this is >>>>>>>based on mathematical probability, but I challenge anyone to prove >>>>>>>that anyone who identifies as Maori can trace their forbears as >>>>>>>exclusively descended to Maori of pre-European times.

So racial identity may differ from genetic identity and both may have >>>>>>different political views. I have not heard any suggestion that real >>>>>>Maori (whatever that means) cannot be members of National or ACT other >>>>>>than from you above Crash - there have clearly been prominent Maori in >>>>>>the National Party in the past, and I can not see why that may not be >>>>>>the case now or in the future, or for ACT. Are you creating artificial >>>>>>racial divisions for political purposes?

Not me, but Willie Jackson clearly has on several occasions. This is >>>>>not about racial division but about some Maori suggesting violent >>>>>responses to other Maori in a different political party.

Now some policies may be favoured by some groups and not others, but >>>>>>that is normal politics. Creating artificial racist arguments is >>>>>>however generally regarded as not being helpful - the >>>>>>misinterpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, and your attempt above to >>>>>>foment racial divisions relating to representation could be seen in >>>>>>that way.

None of which has anything to do with this thread.

I can remember people in my family that identified as British - as >>>>>>indeed they were for most of their lives; generally those born in New >>>>>>Zealand post war identify as New Zealanders. Does it matter?

Irrelevant. This is not about you, it is purely about Maori MPs >>>>>denigrating other Maori MPs in Parliament.

Now I am not going to bother to provide cites Rich. That requires >>>>>time and effort on my behalf which is a waste of time with you.

Not a cite but:

https://tinyurl.com/2b7zz4fb

I hope that the Maori Party and Labour Maori MPs in particular, are >>>>shown this article and read it.

In any other context, Tony would respond to your post by accusing you
of being "Off-Topic!" which is his go-to defence when he needs to
avoid fair discussion.

1) Really, okay, what the heck has Tony's response go to do the topic?

He is a frequent poster to nz.general that finds many responses to
threads to be Off topic - sufficiently often that it is possible he
uses that claim as an attempt to deflect discussion from facts that
are uncomfortable to him.

Possible but not accurate. I use them because you deliberately go off topic - exactly as you have done here - and for the cowardly reason that YOU have nothing of value to say on the topic. Pots and kettles have nothing on you.

I suspect however that your post was a
deliberate attempt to create a conversation in which that sort of
partisan political attack could be used.

What a conclusion jump.

Not a conclusion at all - just a suspicion . . .

Baseless.

The article by Heather Roy
does demonstrate the hypocrisy of the ACT support for "Free Speech!" -
supported to enable them to excuse just those sort of political
attacks that she was herself demonstrating - while trying to shut down
legitimate differences in political views that relate to the removal
of a clause that deals specifically with Maori. Heather Roy is
effectively trying to shut down legitimate arguments against the
removal of that clause, which is in itself specifically linked to the
well-being of Maori people - in other words she is trying to deny free
speech.

Sorry Crash, try to find a defender of Karen Chour from elsewhere -
they do exist, but she is being criticised for not, as a Minister of
the Crown, considering the implications of, and justifying the
readily projected detrimental effects of divisive policies she is
being asked to push through that will damage a particular group of New
Zealanders who just happen to be Maori.

ACT is one of the most authoritarian political parties;

Incorrect again. It is the Maori Party, Greens and Labour Party which
are authoritian in relation to ACT, National and NZF.

I acknowledge your right to hold views that I do not agree with. The
Maori Party, Green Party and Labour Party are authoritative, but the
also less authoritarian than the coalition parties.

Incorrect but a view that you alwya lie about.

while
pretending to hold liberal ideals. Heather Roy comes from before that
artificial affectation, but regardless she cannot be regarded as an
independent commentator.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 01:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On 5 Aug 2024 23:40:29 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2024-08-05, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 06 Aug 2024 08:02:56 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 10:41:14 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 22:41:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 20:14:34 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>>wrote:

So now we get to the real contest: The Maori Party and the Labour >>>>>>>>Maori caucus dealing with Maori in ACT and National. It is 'us' vs >>>>>>>>'not us' or 'us' vs 'fake Maori'. On one side we have the Maori Party >>>>>>>>MPs (both of them) and the Labour Maori Caucus (led by Willie >>>>>>>>Jackson), against Karen Chhour, David Seymour and Winston Peters >>>>>>>>amongst other Maori that are MPs for National or ACT.

If ever we can see how Maori remain very tribal in some respects this >>>>>>>>is it - real Maori cannot be members of National or ACT according to >>>>>>>>the Maori Party and Labour.

The reality is that Maori, like those of all other ethnic groups, can >>>>>>>>be of equal conviction regardless of political persuasion. Neither >>>>>>>>the Maori Party nor Labour can lay claim to be the rightful >>>>>>>>representatives of 'Maoridom'.

In NZ, there are some of us who can trace our forbears back to some >>>>>>>>Maori, but there are none of us who can trace our forbears back to >>>>>>>>Maori exclusively (ie in every generation). So anyone who currently >>>>>>>>identifies as Maori is in fact part-Maori. I acknowledge that this is >>>>>>>>based on mathematical probability, but I challenge anyone to prove >>>>>>>>that anyone who identifies as Maori can trace their forbears as >>>>>>>>exclusively descended to Maori of pre-European times.

So racial identity may differ from genetic identity and both may have >>>>>>>different political views. I have not heard any suggestion that real >>>>>>>Maori (whatever that means) cannot be members of National or ACT other >>>>>>>than from you above Crash - there have clearly been prominent Maori in >>>>>>>the National Party in the past, and I can not see why that may not be >>>>>>>the case now or in the future, or for ACT. Are you creating artificial >>>>>>>racial divisions for political purposes?

Not me, but Willie Jackson clearly has on several occasions. This is >>>>>>not about racial division but about some Maori suggesting violent >>>>>>responses to other Maori in a different political party.

Now some policies may be favoured by some groups and not others, but >>>>>>>that is normal politics. Creating artificial racist arguments is >>>>>>>however generally regarded as not being helpful - the >>>>>>>misinterpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, and your attempt above to >>>>>>>foment racial divisions relating to representation could be seen in >>>>>>>that way.

None of which has anything to do with this thread.

I can remember people in my family that identified as British - as >>>>>>>indeed they were for most of their lives; generally those born in New >>>>>>>Zealand post war identify as New Zealanders. Does it matter?

Irrelevant. This is not about you, it is purely about Maori MPs >>>>>>denigrating other Maori MPs in Parliament.

Now I am not going to bother to provide cites Rich. That requires >>>>>>time and effort on my behalf which is a waste of time with you.

Not a cite but:

https://tinyurl.com/2b7zz4fb

I hope that the Maori Party and Labour Maori MPs in particular, are >>>>>shown this article and read it.

In any other context, Tony would respond to your post by accusing you
of being "Off-Topic!" which is his go-to defence when he needs to
avoid fair discussion.

1) Really, okay, what the heck has Tony's response go to do the topic?

He is a frequent poster to nz.general that finds many responses to
threads to be Off topic - sufficiently often that it is possible he
uses that claim as an attempt to deflect discussion from facts that
are uncomfortable to him.

Possible but not accurate. I use them because you deliberately go off topic - >exactly as you have done here - and for the cowardly reason that YOU have >nothing of value to say on the topic. Pots and kettles have nothing on you.

I suspect however that your post was a
deliberate attempt to create a conversation in which that sort of
partisan political attack could be used.

What a conclusion jump.

Not a conclusion at all - just a suspicion . . .

Baseless.

The article by Heather Roy
does demonstrate the hypocrisy of the ACT support for "Free Speech!" - >>>> supported to enable them to excuse just those sort of political
attacks that she was herself demonstrating - while trying to shut down >>>> legitimate differences in political views that relate to the removal
of a clause that deals specifically with Maori. Heather Roy is
effectively trying to shut down legitimate arguments against the
removal of that clause, which is in itself specifically linked to the
well-being of Maori people - in other words she is trying to deny free >>>> speech.

Sorry Crash, try to find a defender of Karen Chour from elsewhere -
they do exist, but she is being criticised for not, as a Minister of
the Crown, considering the implications of, and justifying the
readily projected detrimental effects of divisive policies she is
being asked to push through that will damage a particular group of New >>>> Zealanders who just happen to be Maori.

ACT is one of the most authoritarian political parties;

Incorrect again. It is the Maori Party, Greens and Labour Party which
are authoritian in relation to ACT, National and NZF.

I acknowledge your right to hold views that I do not agree with. The
Maori Party, Green Party and Labour Party are authoritative, but the
also less authoritarian than the coalition parties.

Incorrect but a view that you alwya lie about.

So provide evidence to refute this:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2023

I accept that the "Libertarian" position of ACT on this chart is what
they now pretend to be, but the evidence now is that ACT as part of
government is rigidly controlled in terms of actual decision making -
it is totally captured by the Atlas Network, which also has support
from cabinet ministers in National and NZ First. If you look at the
similar charts for earlier years, you will see that the Labour Party
has been moving steadily to the right as all three of the current
coalition parties have moved to the right. The pretence at being
""Libertarian enables them to foster far right nutters to influence
various zealots to spread distrust in government and support for
privatisation.

while
pretending to hold liberal ideals. Heather Roy comes from before that
artificial affectation, but regardless she cannot be regarded as an
independent commentator.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 06 Aug 2024 14:46:05 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 01:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On 5 Aug 2024 23:40:29 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2024-08-05, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 06 Aug 2024 08:02:56 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>> wrote:

On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 10:41:14 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 22:41:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 20:14:34 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>>>wrote:

So now we get to the real contest: The Maori Party and the Labour >>>>>>>>>Maori caucus dealing with Maori in ACT and National. It is 'us' vs >>>>>>>>>'not us' or 'us' vs 'fake Maori'. On one side we have the Maori Party >>>>>>>>>MPs (both of them) and the Labour Maori Caucus (led by Willie >>>>>>>>>Jackson), against Karen Chhour, David Seymour and Winston Peters >>>>>>>>>amongst other Maori that are MPs for National or ACT.

If ever we can see how Maori remain very tribal in some respects this >>>>>>>>>is it - real Maori cannot be members of National or ACT according to >>>>>>>>>the Maori Party and Labour.

The reality is that Maori, like those of all other ethnic groups, can >>>>>>>>>be of equal conviction regardless of political persuasion. Neither >>>>>>>>>the Maori Party nor Labour can lay claim to be the rightful >>>>>>>>>representatives of 'Maoridom'.

In NZ, there are some of us who can trace our forbears back to some >>>>>>>>>Maori, but there are none of us who can trace our forbears back to >>>>>>>>>Maori exclusively (ie in every generation). So anyone who currently >>>>>>>>>identifies as Maori is in fact part-Maori. I acknowledge that this is >>>>>>>>>based on mathematical probability, but I challenge anyone to prove >>>>>>>>>that anyone who identifies as Maori can trace their forbears as >>>>>>>>>exclusively descended to Maori of pre-European times.

So racial identity may differ from genetic identity and both may have >>>>>>>>different political views. I have not heard any suggestion that real >>>>>>>>Maori (whatever that means) cannot be members of National or ACT other >>>>>>>>than from you above Crash - there have clearly been prominent Maori in >>>>>>>>the National Party in the past, and I can not see why that may not be >>>>>>>>the case now or in the future, or for ACT. Are you creating artificial >>>>>>>>racial divisions for political purposes?

Not me, but Willie Jackson clearly has on several occasions. This is >>>>>>>not about racial division but about some Maori suggesting violent >>>>>>>responses to other Maori in a different political party.

Now some policies may be favoured by some groups and not others, but >>>>>>>>that is normal politics. Creating artificial racist arguments is >>>>>>>>however generally regarded as not being helpful - the >>>>>>>>misinterpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, and your attempt above to >>>>>>>>foment racial divisions relating to representation could be seen in >>>>>>>>that way.

None of which has anything to do with this thread.

I can remember people in my family that identified as British - as >>>>>>>>indeed they were for most of their lives; generally those born in New >>>>>>>>Zealand post war identify as New Zealanders. Does it matter?

Irrelevant. This is not about you, it is purely about Maori MPs >>>>>>>denigrating other Maori MPs in Parliament.

Now I am not going to bother to provide cites Rich. That requires >>>>>>>time and effort on my behalf which is a waste of time with you.

Not a cite but:

https://tinyurl.com/2b7zz4fb

I hope that the Maori Party and Labour Maori MPs in particular, are >>>>>>shown this article and read it.

In any other context, Tony would respond to your post by accusing you >>>>> of being "Off-Topic!" which is his go-to defence when he needs to
avoid fair discussion.

1) Really, okay, what the heck has Tony's response go to do the topic? >>>He is a frequent poster to nz.general that finds many responses to >>>threads to be Off topic - sufficiently often that it is possible he

uses that claim as an attempt to deflect discussion from facts that
are uncomfortable to him.

Possible but not accurate. I use them because you deliberately go off topic - >>exactly as you have done here - and for the cowardly reason that YOU have >>nothing of value to say on the topic. Pots and kettles have nothing on you. >>>

I suspect however that your post was a
deliberate attempt to create a conversation in which that sort of
partisan political attack could be used.

What a conclusion jump.

Not a conclusion at all - just a suspicion . . .

Baseless.

The article by Heather Roy
does demonstrate the hypocrisy of the ACT support for "Free Speech!" - >>>>> supported to enable them to excuse just those sort of political
attacks that she was herself demonstrating - while trying to shut down >>>>> legitimate differences in political views that relate to the removal >>>>> of a clause that deals specifically with Maori. Heather Roy is
effectively trying to shut down legitimate arguments against the
removal of that clause, which is in itself specifically linked to the >>>>> well-being of Maori people - in other words she is trying to deny free >>>>> speech.

Sorry Crash, try to find a defender of Karen Chour from elsewhere -
they do exist, but she is being criticised for not, as a Minister of >>>>> the Crown, considering the implications of, and justifying the
readily projected detrimental effects of divisive policies she is
being asked to push through that will damage a particular group of New >>>>> Zealanders who just happen to be Maori.

ACT is one of the most authoritarian political parties;

Incorrect again. It is the Maori Party, Greens and Labour Party which >>>>are authoritian in relation to ACT, National and NZF.

I acknowledge your right to hold views that I do not agree with. The >>>Maori Party, Green Party and Labour Party are authoritative, but the
also less authoritarian than the coalition parties.

Incorrect but a view that you alwya lie about.

So provide evidence to refute this:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2023

I accept that the "Libertarian" position of ACT on this chart is what
they now pretend to be,

That is as you cite above, but the accuracy of the politicalcompass
website has long been disputed. You repeat this ad nauseam because it
suits your political rhetoric.

but the evidence now is that ACT as part of
government is rigidly controlled in terms of actual decision making -
it is totally captured by the Atlas Network, which also has support
from cabinet ministers in National and NZ First. If you look at the
similar charts for earlier years, you will see that the Labour Party
has been moving steadily to the right as all three of the current
coalition parties have moved to the right. The pretence at being >""Libertarian enables them to foster far right nutters to influence
various zealots to spread distrust in government and support for >privatisation.

Lies repeated are still lies. You cannot produce a cite in support of
a linkage between any NZ political party and the Atlas Network - you
rely solely on innuendo.

while
pretending to hold liberal ideals. Heather Roy comes from before that >>>>> artificial affectation, but regardless she cannot be regarded as an
independent commentator.

--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 01:28:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:

Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On 5 Aug 2024 23:40:29 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2024-08-05, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 06 Aug 2024 08:02:56 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>> wrote:

On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 10:41:14 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 22:41:02 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>wrote:

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 20:14:34 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d> >>>>>>>>wrote:

So now we get to the real contest: The Maori Party and the Labour >>>>>>>>>Maori caucus dealing with Maori in ACT and National. It is 'us' vs >>>>>>>>>'not us' or 'us' vs 'fake Maori'. On one side we have the Maori Party >>>>>>>>>MPs (both of them) and the Labour Maori Caucus (led by Willie >>>>>>>>>Jackson), against Karen Chhour, David Seymour and Winston Peters >>>>>>>>>amongst other Maori that are MPs for National or ACT.

If ever we can see how Maori remain very tribal in some respects this >>>>>>>>>is it - real Maori cannot be members of National or ACT according to >>>>>>>>>the Maori Party and Labour.

The reality is that Maori, like those of all other ethnic groups, can >>>>>>>>>be of equal conviction regardless of political persuasion. Neither >>>>>>>>>the Maori Party nor Labour can lay claim to be the rightful >>>>>>>>>representatives of 'Maoridom'.

In NZ, there are some of us who can trace our forbears back to some >>>>>>>>>Maori, but there are none of us who can trace our forbears back to >>>>>>>>>Maori exclusively (ie in every generation). So anyone who currently >>>>>>>>>identifies as Maori is in fact part-Maori. I acknowledge that this is >>>>>>>>>based on mathematical probability, but I challenge anyone to prove >>>>>>>>>that anyone who identifies as Maori can trace their forbears as >>>>>>>>>exclusively descended to Maori of pre-European times.

So racial identity may differ from genetic identity and both may have >>>>>>>>different political views. I have not heard any suggestion that real >>>>>>>>Maori (whatever that means) cannot be members of National or ACT other >>>>>>>>than from you above Crash - there have clearly been prominent Maori in >>>>>>>>the National Party in the past, and I can not see why that may not be >>>>>>>>the case now or in the future, or for ACT. Are you creating artificial >>>>>>>>racial divisions for political purposes?

Not me, but Willie Jackson clearly has on several occasions. This is >>>>>>>not about racial division but about some Maori suggesting violent >>>>>>>responses to other Maori in a different political party.

Now some policies may be favoured by some groups and not others, but >>>>>>>>that is normal politics. Creating artificial racist arguments is >>>>>>>>however generally regarded as not being helpful - the >>>>>>>>misinterpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, and your attempt above to >>>>>>>>foment racial divisions relating to representation could be seen in >>>>>>>>that way.

None of which has anything to do with this thread.

I can remember people in my family that identified as British - as >>>>>>>>indeed they were for most of their lives; generally those born in New >>>>>>>>Zealand post war identify as New Zealanders. Does it matter?

Irrelevant. This is not about you, it is purely about Maori MPs >>>>>>>denigrating other Maori MPs in Parliament.

Now I am not going to bother to provide cites Rich. That requires >>>>>>>time and effort on my behalf which is a waste of time with you.

Not a cite but:

https://tinyurl.com/2b7zz4fb

I hope that the Maori Party and Labour Maori MPs in particular, are >>>>>>shown this article and read it.

In any other context, Tony would respond to your post by accusing you >>>>> of being "Off-Topic!" which is his go-to defence when he needs to
avoid fair discussion.

1) Really, okay, what the heck has Tony's response go to do the topic? >>>He is a frequent poster to nz.general that finds many responses to >>>threads to be Off topic - sufficiently often that it is possible he

uses that claim as an attempt to deflect discussion from facts that
are uncomfortable to him.

Possible but not accurate. I use them because you deliberately go off topic - >>exactly as you have done here - and for the cowardly reason that YOU have >>nothing of value to say on the topic. Pots and kettles have nothing on you. >>>

I suspect however that your post was a
deliberate attempt to create a conversation in which that sort of
partisan political attack could be used.

What a conclusion jump.

Not a conclusion at all - just a suspicion . . .

Baseless.

The article by Heather Roy
does demonstrate the hypocrisy of the ACT support for "Free Speech!" - >>>>> supported to enable them to excuse just those sort of political
attacks that she was herself demonstrating - while trying to shut down >>>>> legitimate differences in political views that relate to the removal >>>>> of a clause that deals specifically with Maori. Heather Roy is
effectively trying to shut down legitimate arguments against the
removal of that clause, which is in itself specifically linked to the >>>>> well-being of Maori people - in other words she is trying to deny free >>>>> speech.

Sorry Crash, try to find a defender of Karen Chour from elsewhere -
they do exist, but she is being criticised for not, as a Minister of >>>>> the Crown, considering the implications of, and justifying the
readily projected detrimental effects of divisive policies she is
being asked to push through that will damage a particular group of New >>>>> Zealanders who just happen to be Maori.

ACT is one of the most authoritarian political parties;

Incorrect again. It is the Maori Party, Greens and Labour Party which >>>>are authoritian in relation to ACT, National and NZF.

I acknowledge your right to hold views that I do not agree with. The >>>Maori Party, Green Party and Labour Party are authoritative, but the
also less authoritarian than the coalition parties.

Incorrect but a view that you alwya lie about.

So provide evidence to refute this:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2023

A site with no credentials and no history of value - in fact politically biased.
And your cowardly and idiotic practice or answering the wrong post is stll part of your arsenal of abuse.

I accept that the "Libertarian" position of ACT on this chart is what
they now pretend to be, but the evidence now is that ACT as part of >government is rigidly controlled in terms of actual decision making -
it is totally captured by the Atlas Network, which also has support
from cabinet ministers in National and NZ First. If you look at the
similar charts for earlier years, you will see that the Labour Party
has been moving steadily to the right as all three of the current
coalition parties have moved to the right. The pretence at being >""Libertarian enables them to foster far right nutters to influence
various zealots to spread distrust in government and support for >privatisation.

while
pretending to hold liberal ideals. Heather Roy comes from before that >>>>> artificial affectation, but regardless she cannot be regarded as an
independent commentator.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)