REFERENDUM WOULD BE " '81 SPRINGBOK TOUR"

 

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or x (Twitter).

 

Jackson: "It'll be '81Springbok Tour"

Wouldn't you think that the election result made it obvious that New Zealand is sick and tired of Te Reo and Maori grievances and whining and moaning about their unfair treatment and their rights under Te Tiriti Waitangi?

No. Not obvious to Labour MP Willie Jackson or Te Pati Maori co-leader Rawiri Waititi. As leaders of their proud race they do Maori no favours by exhibiting such obtuseness and resorting to threats to get their way. Throwing their toys out of the cot of Maori favoritism and elitism. 

The Catholic Church, particularly in Palmerston North Diocese, has encouraged Maori to feel 'special', in a sense of entitlement, of privilege. Granted, if you gave a Pakeha a day inside a brown skin they might see life very differently. But God is colour-blind. To God Maori, Pakeha, Indian, Philippino, Korean are all His beloved children and what induces His favours is not their race, but their love for Christ.

Ultimately of course, love for Christ or the lack of it is the determining factor in EVERYTHING. Political commentator Chris Trotter believes that the strength of our love also decides  individuals' stance on Hamas and Israel, and whether we opt now in New Zealand for democracy or what he calls "Ethnic Exceptionalism".

TO BE POLITICAL in the fourth quarter of 2023 is not easy. Yes, New Zealand has just passed through a general election, but the outcome of that contest was signalled well in advance by the polls. That the government lost came as no surprise, even if the vehemence of the electorate’s judgement came as a shock to many of the defeated party’s supporters.

 

But, it wasn’t Labour’s thrashing, and the victory of the Right, that made politics so hard. The explanation for the souring of political discourse here, and around the world, may be traced to Southern Israel, Hamas’s hideous rampage of 7 October, and the furious reaction of the Israeli state.

 

These events have hacked a bloody line through religious faiths, political movements, parties, families and friendships. Where people stand in relation to that dividing line is determined by many factors. Their understanding of history. Their perception of what politics should, and should not, permit. The reach of their hate. The strength of their love. The persuasiveness of their fear.

Significantly, the line runs horizontally, not vertically. Where one stands on the Israel-Hamas War is not a straightforward matter of Left versus Right. On both sides of the classical divide, friends and comrades draw away from each other: blue and white above the line; red, white, green and black below.

Discussing the times and the morals with an old comrade, just a few days ago, we reflected on the fast decreasing utility of the terms “Right” and “Left”. He recalled the ease with which, as much younger men, we were able to sort the issues of the day into neat ideological piles; separate the protagonists from the antagonists; and know a kind of ontological peace. Now, he told me, the only political idea with which he still identifies unequivocally is Democracy. In the past, he proudly proclaimed himself a socialist. Today, he would own to being a “radical democrat” – nothing more.

And now, as if the malevolent spirit of the times has not destabilised our world enough, New Zealanders’ adherence to the values and processes of democracy is being put to the test. Once again, the dividing line is horizontal, not vertical, with the “decolonising” project of Māori nationalism sundering the supporters of democracy from the partisans of ethnic exceptionalism. Like Palestine, the meaning, purpose, and future of Te Tiriti O Waitangi has become an issue over which an amiable ‘agreement to differ’ is no longer possible.

The day that was always going to dawn has arrived. The day when the unmandated revision of the meaning, purpose and scope of the Treaty of Waitangi runs into the numerical majority of New Zealanders who, according to the pollsters, have run out of patience with the “Treatyists” insistence that ‘Non-Māori’ have an open-ended obligation to acknowledge and fulfil what are now their unabashedly revolutionary constitutional claims.

 

This loss of patience has taken the form of the Act Party’s democratic counter-revision of the Treaty: a political formula it seeks to ratify with a referendum involving – and binding – the whole adult population of New Zealand.

The political leadership of Maoridom, and their Pakeha supporters, have been quick to declare their opposition to any resolution of Treaty differences by way of counting votes. The former Minister of Māori Affairs, Willie Jackson, has warned that elements within the Māori world are willing to “make war” on any attempt to re-write the Treaty’s meaning. (That the Waitangi Tribunal and the Judiciary have been doing exactly that for the best part of 50 years appears to have slipped the former minister’s mind.)

 

 

(O)n Q+A, Jack Tame asked Jackson if he plans to leave politics after Labour lost the election.

Jackson responded: “I want to stay because I’m nervous about what might be coming, you know in terms of this nonsensical Treaty referendum, let me tell you now Jack, if they try and push that through it’ll be ’81 Springbok Tour, civil unrest times five, times ten.

“I don’t think we’d be able to handle it or control it when I hear from our people surely they aren’t going to do that after we used the system, after we went through the courts, after Maori mortgaged homes, and their lives in terms of utilising the system and got victories, and now all of a sudden they’re going to be able to manage it in this country and I hope Mr Luxon and Winston show a bit of common sense over this.”Willie Jackson and his pals can’t seem to fathom that there was an election, and the division, race-baiting and separatism that they promoted and implemented was soundly rejected at the ballot box.

New Zealanders have had enough of the woke and overt racism of people like Willie Jackson, Marama Davidson, Rawiri Waititi and every other looter and wrecker of our society.

Enough! we said at the ballot box, like civilised people. https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/11/06/willie-jackson-rolls-out-the-threats/

Considerably less ferociously, the distinguished Treaty historian, Dame Anne Salmond, has also taken up an anti-referendum position. Writing for the Newsroom site, she argues that “the idea of putting the ‘principles of the Treaty’ to a popular vote is unjust and unwise, and should not be entertained by any responsible government ….. a referendum on ‘the principles of the Treaty,’ given its populist appeal to the majority and its inflammatory potential, is not the right (tika) way to conduct this kind of discussion. It would be unjust and divisive, inciting extreme views in all directions and fostering misinformation, anger and ill-will.”

 

A 'Dame' like Jacinda; a NZer of the year like LGBTQI personage Shaneel Lal

The central difficulty with Dame Anne’s position is that it fails to acknowledge that the manner in which the (re)interpretation of the Treaty has been carried out since the passage of the Waitangi Tribunal legislation in 1975 has not been all that “tika” either.

 

The re-conceptualisation of New Zealand’s democratic system of government was undertaken by institutions and individuals not subject to the judgement of the citizenry. Attempting to re-construct the nation’s constitutional edifice without reference to those obliged to live within it was always a very risky venture.

Dame Anne is not alone in her view that holding a referendum on the Treaty would not be wise. Rather than leave the decision to the electors, the former National Party Defence Minister, and present Law Commission member, Dr Wayne Mapp, argues for a Royal Commission of Inquiry “charged with coming up with an acceptable set of ‘Principles of the Treaty’, that could form the basis of legislative definition of the principles. The term itself is a creature of statute but it has never been statutorily defined. So over the last 36 years the Courts have fulfilled that role, supplemented by the bureaucracy.”

Presumably, Dr Mapp is channelling the wisdom of King Solomon, since nothing less would be required to select a panel of Royal Commissioners acceptable to all the parties involved in the Treaty Debate. Any line-up receiving the thumbs-up from Iwi leaders, Te Pāti Māori and Willie Jackson would, almost certainly, get the thumbs-down from David Seymour and Winston Peters. Which is, precisely, why a referendum is necessary.

 

Te Pati Maori's Rawiri Waititi uses his tie to symbolise a noose  

Te Pati Maori's Rawiri Waititi has revealed he isn’t “a fan of democracy” during a candid pre-election conversation with Newshub. He thinks democracy is a "tyranny of the majority."https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/10/05/face-of-the-day-841/

Dr Mapp is not convinced. “The reason why I oppose a referendum is that it will be an explicit removal of minority rights. Māori are a minority, mostly contained in the 18%. They will not agree to an ACT imposed definition of the principles of the treaty. I am well connected to Māori views on this matter, primarily through my wife [Denese Henare - C.T.]. I know the level of response and division that such a referendum will cause.”

Once again, the apparent absence of concern at what manner of response and division might ensue when those Mapp describes as “conservative senior politicians” are successful in persuading Christopher Luxon to rule out a referendum. Clearly, the levying of war against the Crown is something only Māori have the wit to threaten.

And, therein, lies the conundrum Luxon will have to face. If he bows to Māori threats to “make war” on his coalition government by scotching Act’s referendum proposal, then what’s next? What does he suppose will be the lesson drawn by those Māori determined to persist with co-governance, with Three Waters, with the Māori Health Authority?

“The last thing National needs over the next 3 years is an intemperate ‘debate’ over the principles of the Treaty.” Opines Dr Mapp. “There is a smarter approach to this issue.” So the Crown has insisted, ever since the 1980s, when it became frightened of what Māori might do if it dared to say “No”.

 

But, it was those “smarter” approaches, driven by fear, that prompted the decisions that have led us, concession by concession, one legal judgement inspiring and empowering the next, to this present position. Thus we find ourselves located, dangerously, between a rock and a hard place.

But, being political has never been easy – not even when one takes the easy way out. The moment always arrives when a choice has to be made. Democracy? Or Ethnic Exceptionalism? And what determines the choice? That, too, does not change:

Our understanding of history. Our perception of what politics should, and should not, permit. The reach of our hate. The strength of our love. The persuasiveness of our fear.