This is the best description of what is proposed:
https://tinyurl.com/ysnhl9js
Opposition to this is irrational because opposing a debate on the
Treaty in a modern context is entirely aimed at suppressing debate.
Once the bill has been introduced and Select Committee submissions
reviewed, the debate on the bill can start from on a rational basis.
(the short woman from the UK who was shut down from speaking)
On 25 Jan 2024 00:27:12 GMT, Gordon wrote:I watched the footage, she was terrified by an angry mob.
(the short woman from the UK who was shut down from speaking)
Nobody shut her down. First she went all bombastic, daring the minister to >bar her from entry. Then when she was allowed in, she got cold feet and >immediately ran away again.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 25 Jan 2024 00:27:12 GMT, Gordon wrote:I watched the footage, she was terrified by an angry mob.
(the short woman from the UK who was shut down from speaking)
Nobody shut her down. First she went all bombastic, daring the minister to >>bar her from entry. Then when she was allowed in, she got cold feet and >>immediately ran away again.
It beats me why people dislike her, she is and was not anti trans (whatever >that means) she was and is simply pro women. Not a hard distinction to >understand.
On 2024-01-24, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
This is the best description of what is proposed:We are entering a crazy situation for this one. Its similar to the Posie
https://tinyurl.com/ysnhl9js
Opposition to this is irrational because opposing a debate on the
Treaty in a modern context is entirely aimed at suppressing debate.
Once the bill has been introduced and Select Committee submissions
reviewed, the debate on the bill can start from on a rational basis.
(the short woman from the UK who was shut down from speaking)
sitaution, one side wants to shut down the other side from speaking.
Democracy has free speech and debates. Getting into a battle for the right
to speak and debate is something which needs to be sorted even before the >debate can begin.
On 25 Jan 2024 00:27:12 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Debating the treaty is a perfecly valid and arguably essential thing to do - the only people who are aginst it are politically driven animals like you and those who have a vested interest in debate being suppressed.
On 2024-01-24, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
This is the best description of what is proposed:We are entering a crazy situation for this one. Its similar to the Posie >>(the short woman from the UK who was shut down from speaking)
https://tinyurl.com/ysnhl9js
Opposition to this is irrational because opposing a debate on the
Treaty in a modern context is entirely aimed at suppressing debate.
Once the bill has been introduced and Select Committee submissions
reviewed, the debate on the bill can start from on a rational basis.
sitaution, one side wants to shut down the other side from speaking.
Democracy has free speech and debates. Getting into a battle for the right >>to speak and debate is something which needs to be sorted even before the >>debate can begin.
That particular article is unfortunately behind a paywall, but from
the first paragraph and a half it does appear that Peter Dunne,
playing "Captain Sensible" again, is as concerned as many New
Zealanders at the divisive tactics of David Seymour and the
gullibility of Luxon in allowing this farce to even start.
I am not aware of anyone that is trying to shut down debate - the more
New Zealanders know about the proposal and its implications the
clearer the duty of government would be. The lack of comment on the
proposals from ACT and National MPs may indicate a wish to minimise >discussion, but I don't think there is any real evidence for that;
they may be leaving any reasons they believe valid for the proposed >legislation to the first reading.
The Treaty is a significant contract between the Crown (as part of the >colonialisation of New Zealand) and the indigenous people. It is a
valid contract which has been subject to numerous interpretations and >determinations by the courts, assisted by extensive analysis as to
meaning by academics. Now it is proposed by a small number of Members
of Parliament to introduce a Bill to unilaterally amend that contract
by legislation, without negotiation with the other parties.
That introduction of the Bill could be resisted by a majority of
Members of Parliament, but the terms of the Coalition Agreement ensure
that sufficient National and NZ First MPs will join ACT MPs to ensure
that the Bill is introduced and sent to Select Committee; with the
discussion relating to the agreement stating that at that point
further progress will depend on ACT obtaining support from sufficient
other Members of Parliament.
The National Party Leader has now publicly stated that National MPs
will support the introduction and referral to Select Committee, but
that the National Party will ensure that it does not progress further. >Whether ACT now believe that National had always intended to not
support the Bill and used the negotiations to indicate support which
was not intended is up to the parties concerned; that perception that >National may not have negotiated in good faith should not really
concern anyone other than the parties concerned; National supporters
may not believe that to be the real situation, and I suspect that is
fair as it does appear that at least Christopher Luxon and possibly
also David Seymour were not really aware of the issues involved.
I am not aware of anyone wanting to prevent discussion on either the
wording and meaning of the Treaty or of allowing a Bill to be
introduced to Parliament, provided of course that you trust Luxon when
he now says that he has committed his party to ensure that legislation
as proposed will not be passed. Presumably he will instruct National
members of the Select Committee to shut down that process quickly;
there is little point in seeking submissions to a bill that has no
chance of being taken to a second reading - the NZ Taxpayer Union that >supports the ACT Party should applaud the savings from a very brief
single meeting by the Select Committee.
If National MPs do allow legislation as proposed by the ACT Party to
proceed and legislation went through, that could from what we have
already seen of the proposals give rise to significant compensation
under other legislation for those parties to the Treaty from the
Crown; which would likely be a significant amount; enough to defer tax
cuts for a considerable time.
I do hope there is a lot of discussion throughout New Zealand on why a >political party that has previously professed the sanctity of contract
would want to unilaterally break one of the most significant contracts
in New Zealand history, and thereby make it much more difficult to
meet other policy commitments they have made to political donors and >supporters.
It would be somewhat ironic if the legislation was passed and to meet
fair compensation it was necessary to transfer ownership of most if
not all property and shares in property owning companies "owned" by
the Government (that is a lot less than it used to be as a result of
property sales by past National-led governments). It would produce a
much more privatised country - just what ACT and National want!
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 01:24:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot true, a lie with no evidence, but even if it was you have agreed that she >was terrified by a mob. Therefore my comment is correct.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 25 Jan 2024 00:27:12 GMT, Gordon wrote:I watched the footage, she was terrified by an angry mob.
(the short woman from the UK who was shut down from speaking)
Nobody shut her down. First she went all bombastic, daring the minister to >>>>bar her from entry. Then when she was allowed in, she got cold feet and >>>>immediately ran away again.
It beats me why people dislike her, she is and was not anti trans (whatever >>>that means) she was and is simply pro women. Not a hard distinction to >>>understand.
And those protesting against what she was saying were similarly
terrified by the angry mob of her supporters . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Jan 2024 00:27:12 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Debating the treaty is a perfecly valid and arguably essential thing to do - >the only people who are aginst it are politically driven animals like you and >those who have a vested interest in debate being suppressed.
On 2024-01-24, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
This is the best description of what is proposed:We are entering a crazy situation for this one. Its similar to the Posie >>>(the short woman from the UK who was shut down from speaking)
https://tinyurl.com/ysnhl9js
Opposition to this is irrational because opposing a debate on the
Treaty in a modern context is entirely aimed at suppressing debate.
Once the bill has been introduced and Select Committee submissions
reviewed, the debate on the bill can start from on a rational basis.
sitaution, one side wants to shut down the other side from speaking.
Democracy has free speech and debates. Getting into a battle for the right >>>to speak and debate is something which needs to be sorted even before the >>>debate can begin.
That particular article is unfortunately behind a paywall, but from
the first paragraph and a half it does appear that Peter Dunne,
playing "Captain Sensible" again, is as concerned as many New
Zealanders at the divisive tactics of David Seymour and the
gullibility of Luxon in allowing this farce to even start.
I am not aware of anyone that is trying to shut down debate - the more
New Zealanders know about the proposal and its implications the
clearer the duty of government would be. The lack of comment on the >>proposals from ACT and National MPs may indicate a wish to minimise >>discussion, but I don't think there is any real evidence for that;
they may be leaving any reasons they believe valid for the proposed >>legislation to the first reading.
The Treaty is a significant contract between the Crown (as part of the >>colonialisation of New Zealand) and the indigenous people. It is a
valid contract which has been subject to numerous interpretations and >>determinations by the courts, assisted by extensive analysis as to
meaning by academics. Now it is proposed by a small number of Members
of Parliament to introduce a Bill to unilaterally amend that contract
by legislation, without negotiation with the other parties.
That introduction of the Bill could be resisted by a majority of
Members of Parliament, but the terms of the Coalition Agreement ensure
that sufficient National and NZ First MPs will join ACT MPs to ensure
that the Bill is introduced and sent to Select Committee; with the >>discussion relating to the agreement stating that at that point
further progress will depend on ACT obtaining support from sufficient
other Members of Parliament.
The National Party Leader has now publicly stated that National MPs
will support the introduction and referral to Select Committee, but
that the National Party will ensure that it does not progress further. >>Whether ACT now believe that National had always intended to not
support the Bill and used the negotiations to indicate support which
was not intended is up to the parties concerned; that perception that >>National may not have negotiated in good faith should not really
concern anyone other than the parties concerned; National supporters
may not believe that to be the real situation, and I suspect that is
fair as it does appear that at least Christopher Luxon and possibly
also David Seymour were not really aware of the issues involved.
I am not aware of anyone wanting to prevent discussion on either the >>wording and meaning of the Treaty or of allowing a Bill to be
introduced to Parliament, provided of course that you trust Luxon when
he now says that he has committed his party to ensure that legislation
as proposed will not be passed. Presumably he will instruct National >>members of the Select Committee to shut down that process quickly;
there is little point in seeking submissions to a bill that has no
chance of being taken to a second reading - the NZ Taxpayer Union that >>supports the ACT Party should applaud the savings from a very brief
single meeting by the Select Committee.
If National MPs do allow legislation as proposed by the ACT Party to >>proceed and legislation went through, that could from what we have
already seen of the proposals give rise to significant compensation
under other legislation for those parties to the Treaty from the
Crown; which would likely be a significant amount; enough to defer tax
cuts for a considerable time.
I do hope there is a lot of discussion throughout New Zealand on why a >>political party that has previously professed the sanctity of contract >>would want to unilaterally break one of the most significant contracts
in New Zealand history, and thereby make it much more difficult to
meet other policy commitments they have made to political donors and >>supporters.
It would be somewhat ironic if the legislation was passed and to meet
fair compensation it was necessary to transfer ownership of most if
not all property and shares in property owning companies "owned" by
the Government (that is a lot less than it used to be as a result of >>property sales by past National-led governments). It would produce a
much more privatised country - just what ACT and National want!
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 05:32:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe mob that terrified her was real, the other mob is your fantasy (for fantasy read deliberate distortion of the facts).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 01:24:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot true, a lie with no evidence, but even if it was you have agreed that she >>was terrified by a mob. Therefore my comment is correct.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 25 Jan 2024 00:27:12 GMT, Gordon wrote:I watched the footage, she was terrified by an angry mob.
(the short woman from the UK who was shut down from speaking)
Nobody shut her down. First she went all bombastic, daring the minister to >>>>>bar her from entry. Then when she was allowed in, she got cold feet and >>>>>immediately ran away again.
It beats me why people dislike her, she is and was not anti trans (whatever >>>>that means) she was and is simply pro women. Not a hard distinction to >>>>understand.
And those protesting against what she was saying were similarly
terrified by the angry mob of her supporters . . .
For once you got something "right"! I don't believe there was really
much terror on either side - that is why I referred to "similarly
terrified"
Well done Tony!
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 05:35:34 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou said nothing that I re-inforced.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Jan 2024 00:27:12 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Debating the treaty is a perfecly valid and arguably essential thing to do - >>the only people who are aginst it are politically driven animals like you and >>those who have a vested interest in debate being suppressed.
On 2024-01-24, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
This is the best description of what is proposed:We are entering a crazy situation for this one. Its similar to the Posie >>>>(the short woman from the UK who was shut down from speaking) >>>>sitaution, one side wants to shut down the other side from speaking.
https://tinyurl.com/ysnhl9js
Opposition to this is irrational because opposing a debate on the
Treaty in a modern context is entirely aimed at suppressing debate.
Once the bill has been introduced and Select Committee submissions
reviewed, the debate on the bill can start from on a rational basis. >>>>>
Democracy has free speech and debates. Getting into a battle for the right >>>>to speak and debate is something which needs to be sorted even before the >>>>debate can begin.
That particular article is unfortunately behind a paywall, but from
the first paragraph and a half it does appear that Peter Dunne,
playing "Captain Sensible" again, is as concerned as many New
Zealanders at the divisive tactics of David Seymour and the
gullibility of Luxon in allowing this farce to even start.
I am not aware of anyone that is trying to shut down debate - the more >>>New Zealanders know about the proposal and its implications the
clearer the duty of government would be. The lack of comment on the >>>proposals from ACT and National MPs may indicate a wish to minimise >>>discussion, but I don't think there is any real evidence for that;
they may be leaving any reasons they believe valid for the proposed >>>legislation to the first reading.
The Treaty is a significant contract between the Crown (as part of the >>>colonialisation of New Zealand) and the indigenous people. It is a
valid contract which has been subject to numerous interpretations and >>>determinations by the courts, assisted by extensive analysis as to >>>meaning by academics. Now it is proposed by a small number of Members
of Parliament to introduce a Bill to unilaterally amend that contract
by legislation, without negotiation with the other parties.
That introduction of the Bill could be resisted by a majority of
Members of Parliament, but the terms of the Coalition Agreement ensure >>>that sufficient National and NZ First MPs will join ACT MPs to ensure >>>that the Bill is introduced and sent to Select Committee; with the >>>discussion relating to the agreement stating that at that point
further progress will depend on ACT obtaining support from sufficient >>>other Members of Parliament.
The National Party Leader has now publicly stated that National MPs
will support the introduction and referral to Select Committee, but
that the National Party will ensure that it does not progress further. >>>Whether ACT now believe that National had always intended to not
support the Bill and used the negotiations to indicate support which
was not intended is up to the parties concerned; that perception that >>>National may not have negotiated in good faith should not really
concern anyone other than the parties concerned; National supporters
may not believe that to be the real situation, and I suspect that is
fair as it does appear that at least Christopher Luxon and possibly
also David Seymour were not really aware of the issues involved.
I am not aware of anyone wanting to prevent discussion on either the >>>wording and meaning of the Treaty or of allowing a Bill to be
introduced to Parliament, provided of course that you trust Luxon when
he now says that he has committed his party to ensure that legislation
as proposed will not be passed. Presumably he will instruct National >>>members of the Select Committee to shut down that process quickly;
there is little point in seeking submissions to a bill that has no
chance of being taken to a second reading - the NZ Taxpayer Union that >>>supports the ACT Party should applaud the savings from a very brief >>>single meeting by the Select Committee.
If National MPs do allow legislation as proposed by the ACT Party to >>>proceed and legislation went through, that could from what we have >>>already seen of the proposals give rise to significant compensation
under other legislation for those parties to the Treaty from the
Crown; which would likely be a significant amount; enough to defer tax >>>cuts for a considerable time.
I do hope there is a lot of discussion throughout New Zealand on why a >>>political party that has previously professed the sanctity of contract >>>would want to unilaterally break one of the most significant contracts
in New Zealand history, and thereby make it much more difficult to
meet other policy commitments they have made to political donors and >>>supporters.
It would be somewhat ironic if the legislation was passed and to meet >>>fair compensation it was necessary to transfer ownership of most if
not all property and shares in property owning companies "owned" by
the Government (that is a lot less than it used to be as a result of >>>property sales by past National-led governments). It would produce a
much more privatised country - just what ACT and National want!
Thanks for reinforcing my statement above: "I am not aware of anyone
that is trying to shut down debate - the more New Zealanders know
about the proposal and its implications the clearer the duty of
government would be."
Well done Tony.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 05:32:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe mob that terrified her was real, the other mob is your fantasy (for fantasy
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 01:24:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not true, a lie with no evidence, but even if it was you have agreed that she
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 25 Jan 2024 00:27:12 GMT, Gordon wrote:I watched the footage, she was terrified by an angry mob.
(the short woman from the UK who was shut down from speaking)
Nobody shut her down. First she went all bombastic, daring the minister to
bar her from entry. Then when she was allowed in, she got cold feet and >>>>>>immediately ran away again.
It beats me why people dislike her, she is and was not anti trans (whatever
that means) she was and is simply pro women. Not a hard distinction to >>>>>understand.
And those protesting against what she was saying were similarly >>>>terrified by the angry mob of her supporters . . .
was terrified by a mob. Therefore my comment is correct.
For once you got something "right"! I don't believe there was really
much terror on either side - that is why I referred to "similarly >>terrified"
Well done Tony!
read deliberate distortion of the facts).
Of course I was right and finally you agreed.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course they are not - 10,000 people gathered to have a discussion!
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 05:35:34 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou said nothing that I re-inforced.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Jan 2024 00:27:12 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Debating the treaty is a perfecly valid and arguably essential thing to do - >>>the only people who are aginst it are politically driven animals like you and
On 2024-01-24, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
This is the best description of what is proposed:We are entering a crazy situation for this one. Its similar to the Posie >>>>>(the short woman from the UK who was shut down from speaking) >>>>>sitaution, one side wants to shut down the other side from speaking.
https://tinyurl.com/ysnhl9js
Opposition to this is irrational because opposing a debate on the
Treaty in a modern context is entirely aimed at suppressing debate. >>>>>> Once the bill has been introduced and Select Committee submissions >>>>>> reviewed, the debate on the bill can start from on a rational basis. >>>>>>
Democracy has free speech and debates. Getting into a battle for the right >>>>>to speak and debate is something which needs to be sorted even before the >>>>>debate can begin.
That particular article is unfortunately behind a paywall, but from
the first paragraph and a half it does appear that Peter Dunne,
playing "Captain Sensible" again, is as concerned as many New >>>>Zealanders at the divisive tactics of David Seymour and the
gullibility of Luxon in allowing this farce to even start.
I am not aware of anyone that is trying to shut down debate - the more >>>>New Zealanders know about the proposal and its implications the
clearer the duty of government would be. The lack of comment on the >>>>proposals from ACT and National MPs may indicate a wish to minimise >>>>discussion, but I don't think there is any real evidence for that;
they may be leaving any reasons they believe valid for the proposed >>>>legislation to the first reading.
The Treaty is a significant contract between the Crown (as part of the >>>>colonialisation of New Zealand) and the indigenous people. It is a >>>>valid contract which has been subject to numerous interpretations and >>>>determinations by the courts, assisted by extensive analysis as to >>>>meaning by academics. Now it is proposed by a small number of Members >>>>of Parliament to introduce a Bill to unilaterally amend that contract >>>>by legislation, without negotiation with the other parties.
That introduction of the Bill could be resisted by a majority of >>>>Members of Parliament, but the terms of the Coalition Agreement ensure >>>>that sufficient National and NZ First MPs will join ACT MPs to ensure >>>>that the Bill is introduced and sent to Select Committee; with the >>>>discussion relating to the agreement stating that at that point
further progress will depend on ACT obtaining support from sufficient >>>>other Members of Parliament.
The National Party Leader has now publicly stated that National MPs >>>>will support the introduction and referral to Select Committee, but >>>>that the National Party will ensure that it does not progress further. >>>>Whether ACT now believe that National had always intended to not >>>>support the Bill and used the negotiations to indicate support which >>>>was not intended is up to the parties concerned; that perception that >>>>National may not have negotiated in good faith should not really >>>>concern anyone other than the parties concerned; National supporters >>>>may not believe that to be the real situation, and I suspect that is >>>>fair as it does appear that at least Christopher Luxon and possibly >>>>also David Seymour were not really aware of the issues involved.
I am not aware of anyone wanting to prevent discussion on either the >>>>wording and meaning of the Treaty or of allowing a Bill to be >>>>introduced to Parliament, provided of course that you trust Luxon when >>>>he now says that he has committed his party to ensure that legislation >>>>as proposed will not be passed. Presumably he will instruct National >>>>members of the Select Committee to shut down that process quickly; >>>>there is little point in seeking submissions to a bill that has no >>>>chance of being taken to a second reading - the NZ Taxpayer Union that >>>>supports the ACT Party should applaud the savings from a very brief >>>>single meeting by the Select Committee.
If National MPs do allow legislation as proposed by the ACT Party to >>>>proceed and legislation went through, that could from what we have >>>>already seen of the proposals give rise to significant compensation >>>>under other legislation for those parties to the Treaty from the
Crown; which would likely be a significant amount; enough to defer tax >>>>cuts for a considerable time.
I do hope there is a lot of discussion throughout New Zealand on why a >>>>political party that has previously professed the sanctity of contract >>>>would want to unilaterally break one of the most significant contracts >>>>in New Zealand history, and thereby make it much more difficult to
meet other policy commitments they have made to political donors and >>>>supporters.
It would be somewhat ironic if the legislation was passed and to meet >>>>fair compensation it was necessary to transfer ownership of most if
not all property and shares in property owning companies "owned" by
the Government (that is a lot less than it used to be as a result of >>>>property sales by past National-led governments). It would produce a >>>>much more privatised country - just what ACT and National want!
those who have a vested interest in debate being suppressed.
Thanks for reinforcing my statement above: "I am not aware of anyone
that is trying to shut down debate - the more New Zealanders know
about the proposal and its implications the clearer the duty of
government would be."
Well done Tony.
Maori prtoesters and the King are trying to shut down debate.
Put your sarcasm back up your bum where it was generated.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 05:43:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo change - you are wrong. There was only one mob and they threatened a woman who only wanted to debate - no wonder you hate her.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 05:32:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe mob that terrified her was real, the other mob is your fantasy (for >>fantasy
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 01:24:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not true, a lie with no evidence, but even if it was you have agreed that >>>>she
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 25 Jan 2024 00:27:12 GMT, Gordon wrote:I watched the footage, she was terrified by an angry mob.
(the short woman from the UK who was shut down from speaking)
Nobody shut her down. First she went all bombastic, daring the minister >>>>>>>to
bar her from entry. Then when she was allowed in, she got cold feet and >>>>>>>immediately ran away again.
It beats me why people dislike her, she is and was not anti trans >>>>>>(whatever
that means) she was and is simply pro women. Not a hard distinction to >>>>>>understand.
And those protesting against what she was saying were similarly >>>>>terrified by the angry mob of her supporters . . .
was terrified by a mob. Therefore my comment is correct.
For once you got something "right"! I don't believe there was really >>>much terror on either side - that is why I referred to "similarly >>>terrified"
Well done Tony!
read deliberate distortion of the facts).
Of course I was right and finally you agreed.
Oh dear, now you are changing your story and getting it wrong - again!
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 05:46:26 -0000 (UTC), TonyOf course they are - they want to stifle debate, they want no review of the treaty. They don't want to talk.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course they are not - 10,000 people gathered to have a discussion!
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 05:35:34 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou said nothing that I re-inforced.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Jan 2024 00:27:12 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:the only people who are aginst it are politically driven animals like you >>>>and
On 2024-01-24, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
This is the best description of what is proposed:We are entering a crazy situation for this one. Its similar to the Posie >>>>>>(the short woman from the UK who was shut down from speaking) >>>>>>sitaution, one side wants to shut down the other side from speaking. >>>>>>
https://tinyurl.com/ysnhl9js
Opposition to this is irrational because opposing a debate on the >>>>>>> Treaty in a modern context is entirely aimed at suppressing debate. >>>>>>> Once the bill has been introduced and Select Committee submissions >>>>>>> reviewed, the debate on the bill can start from on a rational basis. >>>>>>>
Democracy has free speech and debates. Getting into a battle for the right
to speak and debate is something which needs to be sorted even before the >>>>>>debate can begin.
That particular article is unfortunately behind a paywall, but from >>>>>the first paragraph and a half it does appear that Peter Dunne, >>>>>playing "Captain Sensible" again, is as concerned as many New >>>>>Zealanders at the divisive tactics of David Seymour and the >>>>>gullibility of Luxon in allowing this farce to even start.
I am not aware of anyone that is trying to shut down debate - the more >>>>>New Zealanders know about the proposal and its implications the >>>>>clearer the duty of government would be. The lack of comment on the >>>>>proposals from ACT and National MPs may indicate a wish to minimise >>>>>discussion, but I don't think there is any real evidence for that; >>>>>they may be leaving any reasons they believe valid for the proposed >>>>>legislation to the first reading.
The Treaty is a significant contract between the Crown (as part of the >>>>>colonialisation of New Zealand) and the indigenous people. It is a >>>>>valid contract which has been subject to numerous interpretations and >>>>>determinations by the courts, assisted by extensive analysis as to >>>>>meaning by academics. Now it is proposed by a small number of Members >>>>>of Parliament to introduce a Bill to unilaterally amend that contract >>>>>by legislation, without negotiation with the other parties.
That introduction of the Bill could be resisted by a majority of >>>>>Members of Parliament, but the terms of the Coalition Agreement ensure >>>>>that sufficient National and NZ First MPs will join ACT MPs to ensure >>>>>that the Bill is introduced and sent to Select Committee; with the >>>>>discussion relating to the agreement stating that at that point >>>>>further progress will depend on ACT obtaining support from sufficient >>>>>other Members of Parliament.
The National Party Leader has now publicly stated that National MPs >>>>>will support the introduction and referral to Select Committee, but >>>>>that the National Party will ensure that it does not progress further. >>>>>Whether ACT now believe that National had always intended to not >>>>>support the Bill and used the negotiations to indicate support which >>>>>was not intended is up to the parties concerned; that perception that >>>>>National may not have negotiated in good faith should not really >>>>>concern anyone other than the parties concerned; National supporters >>>>>may not believe that to be the real situation, and I suspect that is >>>>>fair as it does appear that at least Christopher Luxon and possibly >>>>>also David Seymour were not really aware of the issues involved.
I am not aware of anyone wanting to prevent discussion on either the >>>>>wording and meaning of the Treaty or of allowing a Bill to be >>>>>introduced to Parliament, provided of course that you trust Luxon when >>>>>he now says that he has committed his party to ensure that legislation >>>>>as proposed will not be passed. Presumably he will instruct National >>>>>members of the Select Committee to shut down that process quickly; >>>>>there is little point in seeking submissions to a bill that has no >>>>>chance of being taken to a second reading - the NZ Taxpayer Union that >>>>>supports the ACT Party should applaud the savings from a very brief >>>>>single meeting by the Select Committee.
If National MPs do allow legislation as proposed by the ACT Party to >>>>>proceed and legislation went through, that could from what we have >>>>>already seen of the proposals give rise to significant compensation >>>>>under other legislation for those parties to the Treaty from the >>>>>Crown; which would likely be a significant amount; enough to defer tax >>>>>cuts for a considerable time.
I do hope there is a lot of discussion throughout New Zealand on why a >>>>>political party that has previously professed the sanctity of contract >>>>>would want to unilaterally break one of the most significant contracts >>>>>in New Zealand history, and thereby make it much more difficult to >>>>>meet other policy commitments they have made to political donors and >>>>>supporters.
It would be somewhat ironic if the legislation was passed and to meet >>>>>fair compensation it was necessary to transfer ownership of most if >>>>>not all property and shares in property owning companies "owned" by >>>>>the Government (that is a lot less than it used to be as a result of >>>>>property sales by past National-led governments). It would produce a >>>>>much more privatised country - just what ACT and National want! >>>>Debating the treaty is a perfecly valid and arguably essential thing to do >>>>-
those who have a vested interest in debate being suppressed.
Thanks for reinforcing my statement above: "I am not aware of anyone
that is trying to shut down debate - the more New Zealanders know
about the proposal and its implications the clearer the duty of >>>government would be."
Well done Tony.
Maori prtoesters and the King are trying to shut down debate.
Where has the discussion been from the government viewpoint?
Put your sarcasm back up your bum where it was generated.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 01:24:07 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot true, a lie with no evidence, but even if it was you have agreed that she was terrified by a mob. Therefore my comment is correct.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 25 Jan 2024 00:27:12 GMT, Gordon wrote:I watched the footage, she was terrified by an angry mob.
(the short woman from the UK who was shut down from speaking)
Nobody shut her down. First she went all bombastic, daring the minister to >>>bar her from entry. Then when she was allowed in, she got cold feet and >>>immediately ran away again.
It beats me why people dislike her, she is and was not anti trans (whatever >>that means) she was and is simply pro women. Not a hard distinction to >>understand.
And those protesting against what she was saying were similarly
terrified by the angry mob of her supporters . . .
For once you got something "right"! I don't believe there was really
much terror on either side - that is why I referred to "similarly
terrified"
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 18:38:42 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
For once you got something "right"! I don't believe there was really
much terror on either side - that is why I referred to "similarly >>terrified"
Try telling that to the 71 year old lady who was punched in the face
several times by a young male "pride" protester.
Bill.
The mob that terrified her was real, the other mob is your fantasy (for fantasyNot true, a lie with no evidence, but even if it was you have agreed that sheOn 25 Jan 2024 00:27:12 GMT, Gordon wrote:I watched the footage, she was terrified by an angry mob.
(the short woman from the UK who was shut down from speaking)
Nobody shut her down. First she went all bombastic, daring the minister to
bar her from entry. Then when she was allowed in, she got cold feet and >>>>>>immediately ran away again.
It beats me why people dislike her, she is and was not anti trans (whatever
that means) she was and is simply pro women. Not a hard distinction to >>>>>understand.
And those protesting against what she was saying were similarly >>>>terrified by the angry mob of her supporters . . .
was terrified by a mob. Therefore my comment is correct.
For once you got something "right"! I don't believe there was really
much terror on either side - that is why I referred to "similarly >>terrified"
Well done Tony!
read deliberate distortion of the facts).
Of course I was right and finally you agreed.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 25 Jan 2024 00:27:12 GMT, Gordon wrote:
(the short woman from the UK who was shut down from speaking)
Nobody shut her down. First she went all bombastic, daring the minister
to bar her from entry. Then when she was allowed in, she got cold feet
and immediately ran away again.
I watched the footage, she was terrified by an angry mob.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 01:24:07 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:No, it means they did not arrest anybody - they were angry and frightened her and others.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 25 Jan 2024 00:27:12 GMT, Gordon wrote:
(the short woman from the UK who was shut down from speaking)
Nobody shut her down. First she went all bombastic, daring the minister >>>to bar her from entry. Then when she was allowed in, she got cold feet >>>and immediately ran away again.
I watched the footage, she was terrified by an angry mob.
Did the cops arrest anybody? No? Then they were not unruly.
If she, an Aussie, is so easily terrified by a bunch of New Zealanders,She is British not Australian, it is not her job (it is a belief) and significant risk of being hurt should not occur in this country in those circumstances - she did the right thing and she was abysmally treated by the police and others. It seems you never saw the footage - I recommend that you do.
maybe she should give up her job and try something less stressful.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
If she, an Aussie, is so easily terrified by a bunch of New Zealanders, >>maybe she should give up her job and try something less stressful.
She is British not Australian ...
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 23:46:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:That is a a sad endictment on New Zealand and our police eh? Which is pretty much what I thought at the time.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
If she, an Aussie, is so easily terrified by a bunch of New Zealanders, >>>maybe she should give up her job and try something less stressful.
She is British not Australian ...
Sorry, I didn’t realize. Maybe she would be safer if she went back where >she came from.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 23:46:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
If she, an Aussie, is so easily terrified by a bunch of New
Zealanders, maybe she should give up her job and try something less
stressful.
She is British not Australian ...
Sorry, I didn’t realize. Maybe she would be safer if she went back
where she came from.
That is a a sad endictment on New Zealand and our police eh?
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 23:46:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
If she, an Aussie, is so easily terrified by a bunch of New Zealanders, >>>maybe she should give up her job and try something less stressful.
She is British not Australian ...
Sorry, I didnt realize. Maybe she would be safer if she went back where
she came from.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Do we Mutley? We should have free speech, we are entitled to it, but sometimes I wonder - however at least the government drive to a reduction in free speesh is no longer present - so we live in hope.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 23:46:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
If she, an Aussie, is so easily terrified by a bunch of New Zealanders, >>>>maybe she should give up her job and try something less stressful.
She is British not Australian ...
Sorry, I didnt realize. Maybe she would be safer if she went back where >>she came from.
Maybe you may realize that we still just have free speech in this
country.
Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Do we Mutley? We should have free speech, we are entitled to it, but sometimes >I wonder - however at least the government drive to a reduction in free speesh >is no longer present - so we live in hope.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 23:46:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
If she, an Aussie, is so easily terrified by a bunch of New Zealanders, >>>>>maybe she should give up her job and try something less stressful.
She is British not Australian ...
Sorry, I didnt realize. Maybe she would be safer if she went back where >>>she came from.
Maybe you may realize that we still just have free speech in this
country.
Having said that Posie did not see an opportunity for free speech at the >gathering wher she was intimidated - that is clear.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 00:04:41 -0000 (UTC), TonyI didn't say there were any change in laws.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Do we Mutley? We should have free speech, we are entitled to it, but >>sometimes
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 23:46:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
If she, an Aussie, is so easily terrified by a bunch of New Zealanders, >>>>>>maybe she should give up her job and try something less stressful.
She is British not Australian ...
Sorry, I didnt realize. Maybe she would be safer if she went back where >>>>she came from.
Maybe you may realize that we still just have free speech in this >>>country.
I wonder - however at least the government drive to a reduction in free >>speesh
is no longer present - so we live in hope.
Having said that Posie did not see an opportunity for free speech at the >>gathering wher she was intimidated - that is clear.
I am not aware of any change in laws affecting Free Speech in the last
15 or 20 years, Tony, and that includes what police are authorised to
do (and what is seen as good Police practice) in that time either.
What are you referring to?
I suspect that is she applied now to enter to say the same things
again she may not get a visa - NAct1st would not want a repeat of the >disruption she caused.SHe caused no such thing - that is a lie.
I suspect that is she applied now to enter to say the same things again
she may not get a visa - NAct1st would not want a repeat of the
disruption she caused.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Sorry, I didn’t realize. Maybe she would be safer if she went back
where she came from.
Maybe you may realize that we still just have free speech in this
country.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 12:41:47 +1300, Mutley wrote:Non-sequitur - she was the one that was prevented from speaking.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Sorry, I didn’t realize. Maybe she would be safer if she went back >>>where she came from.
Maybe you may realize that we still just have free speech in this
country.
Yes, we do. Too free for her liking, maybe?
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 14:27:32 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:What a left wing diatribe.
I suspect that is she applied now to enter to say the same things again
she may not get a visa - NAct1st would not want a repeat of the
disruption she caused.
Her “disruption” was a storm in a teacup. She was the one who ended up >“disrupted”, and had to run away with her tail between her legs.
Labour let her in, as proof that we do indeed have free speech in this >country.
It would be a shame for NatActlandFirst to do the opposite. It would be a >betrayal of liberal values, wouldn’t it?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 12:41:47 +1300, Mutley wrote:Non-sequitur - she was the one that was prevented from speaking.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Sorry, I didn’t realize. Maybe she would be safer if she went back >>>>where she came from.
Maybe you may realize that we still just have free speech in this
country.
Yes, we do. Too free for her liking, maybe?
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 06:11:47 -0000 (UTC), TonyThey are wrong, probably lying like you
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 12:41:47 +1300, Mutley wrote:Non-sequitur - she was the one that was prevented from speaking.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Sorry, I didn’t realize. Maybe she would be safer if she went back >>>>>where she came from.
Maybe you may realize that we still just have free speech in this
country.
Yes, we do. Too free for her liking, maybe?
Some believed that she and her supporters were preventing others from >speaking.
Free speech is not necessarily a license to say whatever youWhat an idiotic trite thing to say,
like whenever you like . . . for anyone.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Indeed, there were two protests at the same place and time - quite
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 06:11:47 -0000 (UTC), TonyThey are wrong, probably lying like you
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 12:41:47 +1300, Mutley wrote:Non-sequitur - she was the one that was prevented from speaking.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Sorry, I didn’t realize. Maybe she would be safer if she went back >>>>>>where she came from.
Maybe you may realize that we still just have free speech in this
country.
Yes, we do. Too free for her liking, maybe?
Some believed that she and her supporters were preventing others from >>speaking.
Free speech is not necessarily a license to say whatever youWhat an idiotic trite thing to say,
like whenever you like . . . for anyone.
Nobody knows what she was going to say because she was not allowed to by an >angry mob - geez, you and your babyish give away statements.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 19:02:38 -0000 (UTC), TonyNope, there was one attempt to hold a public meeting and only one protest that did all they could to stop that legitimate meeting by any means they could. Just the facts, I recommend facts to you.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Indeed, there were two protests at the same place and time
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 06:11:47 -0000 (UTC), TonyThey are wrong, probably lying like you
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 12:41:47 +1300, Mutley wrote:Non-sequitur - she was the one that was prevented from speaking.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Sorry, I didn’t realize. Maybe she would be safer if she went back >>>>>>>where she came from.
Maybe you may realize that we still just have free speech in this >>>>>> country.
Yes, we do. Too free for her liking, maybe?
Some believed that she and her supporters were preventing others from >>>speaking.
Free speech is not necessarily a license to say whatever youWhat an idiotic trite thing to say,
like whenever you like . . . for anyone.
Nobody knows what she was going to say because she was not allowed to by an >>angry mob - geez, you and your babyish give away statements.
- quite
unfortunate really, but it does happen when two groups have strongly
opposing views - and your description fairly accurately covers the
situation from the perspective of those who had joined "Posie Parker"
as well as those who were protesting against the views she apparently
wanted to espouse. It was further complicated by a biker gang
involving themselves; but I believe New Zealand has got past all that,
and given the subject of this thread it is time that we - to use a
popular phrase in New Zealand at present, got "Back On Track"!
There have of course been developments regarding ACT's legislation on
the Treaty, and "Getting Back on Track" is proving to mean different
things to different parts of the government - see this article:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/how-the-treaty-strengthens-democracy-and-provides-a-check-on-unbridled-power-dominic-osullivan/UTUMQGDGCNDR7DV73FIXFKSIOM/
and then
https://archive.li/DYiGH from a journalist with good contacts within
the National Party
and from a couple of days later this: >https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/national-and-act-are-failing-the-good-faith-test-over-treaty-principles-bill-matthew-hooton/MTKZFN6HPFBFDIT3GIYOKEFWAM/
(also available at : https://archive.li/eOrVe )
I know you are always keen to keep to the Subject of a thread, Tony .
. .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
There have of course been developments regarding ACT's legislation on
the Treaty, and "Getting Back on Track" is proving to mean different >>>things to different parts of the government - see this article:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/how-the-treaty-strengthens-democracy-and-provides-a-check-on-unbridled-power-dominic-osullivan/UTUMQGDGCNDR7DV73FIXFKSIOM/
and then
https://archive.li/DYiGH from a journalist with good contacts within >>>the National Party
and from a couple of days later this: >>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/national-and-act-are-failing-the-good-faith-test-over-treaty-principles-bill-matthew-hooton/MTKZFN6HPFBFDIT3GIYOKEFWAM/
(also available at : https://archive.li/eOrVe )
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
There have of course been developments regarding ACT's legislation on
the Treaty, and "Getting Back on Track" is proving to mean different
things to different parts of the government - see this article:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/how-the-treaty-strengthens-democracy-and-provides-a-check-on-unbridled-power-dominic-osullivan/UTUMQGDGCNDR7DV73FIXFKSIOM/
and then
https://archive.li/DYiGH from a journalist with good contacts within
the National Party
and from a couple of days later this: >>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/national-and-act-are-failing-the-good-faith-test-over-treaty-principles-bill-matthew-hooton/MTKZFN6HPFBFDIT3GIYOKEFWAM/
(also available at : https://archive.li/eOrVe )
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:37:31 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Irrelevant - ACT has no such connection or indeed any part of our government.
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
There have of course been developments regarding ACT's legislation on >>>>the Treaty, and "Getting Back on Track" is proving to mean different >>>>things to different parts of the government - see this article:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/how-the-treaty-strengthens-democracy-and-provides-a-check-on-unbridled-power-dominic-osullivan/UTUMQGDGCNDR7DV73FIXFKSIOM/
and then
https://archive.li/DYiGH from a journalist with good contacts within >>>>the National Party
and from a couple of days later this: >>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/national-and-act-are-failing-the-good-faith-test-over-treaty-principles-bill-matthew-hooton/MTKZFN6HPFBFDIT3GIYOKEFWAM/
(also available at : https://archive.li/eOrVe )
Now we have this: >>https://thestandard.org.nz/the-week-luxon-lost-his-moral-mandate-to-lead/
which gave links and some quotes from >>https://www.politik.co.nz/ratanas-trumpet-sounds-a-warning/
(Behind a paywall sadly, but written by Richard Harman who was in the
early years a valued poster to nz.general)
and >>https://teara.govt.nz/en/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-nga-matapono-o-te-tiriti-o-waitangi/page-2
(A reminder of a few legal facts)
and >>https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2401/S00023/on-treaty-principles-and-nikki-haleys-false-dawn.htm
There was also a programme on Radio New Zealand yesterday summarising
the Voice referendum, and pointing out the high number of lies and >>misleading statements from the Atlas Network promoting a no vote, we
could expect a similar dishonest campaign should the sort of
referendum ACT is pushing for happen in New Zealand.
I und the link Listen to: >https://www.rnz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018923635
This gives the history and an analysis, and goes on to cover the ways
in which oganisations such as the NZ Taxpayer Union exploit and
finance destructive campaigns that are not honest but play on fears of >minority groups. With each of the Government coalition parties having
links to the NZ Taxpayer Union, it is worth spending 25 minutes to
hear how such organisations work . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
There have of course been developments regarding ACT's legislation on
the Treaty, and "Getting Back on Track" is proving to mean different >>>things to different parts of the government - see this article:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/how-the-treaty-strengthens-democracy-and-provides-a-check-on-unbridled-power-dominic-osullivan/UTUMQGDGCNDR7DV73FIXFKSIOM/
and then
https://archive.li/DYiGH from a journalist with good contacts within >>>the National Party
and from a couple of days later this: >>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/national-and-act-are-failing-the-good-faith-test-over-treaty-principles-bill-matthew-hooton/MTKZFN6HPFBFDIT3GIYOKEFWAM/
(also available at : https://archive.li/eOrVe )
Now we have this: >https://thestandard.org.nz/the-week-luxon-lost-his-moral-mandate-to-lead/
which gave links and some quotes from >https://www.politik.co.nz/ratanas-trumpet-sounds-a-warning/
(Behind a paywall sadly, but written by Richard Harman who was in the
early years a valued poster to nz.general)
and >https://teara.govt.nz/en/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-nga-matapono-o-te-tiriti-o-waitangi/page-2
(A reminder of a few legal facts)
and >https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2401/S00023/on-treaty-principles-and-nikki-haleys-false-dawn.htm
There was also a programme on Radio New Zealand yesterday summarising
the Voice referendum, and pointing out the high number of lies and
misleading statements from the Atlas Network promoting a no vote, we
could expect a similar dishonest campaign should the sort of
referendum ACT is pushing for happen in New Zealand.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:37:31 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Irrelevant - ACT has no such connection or indeed any part of our government. And your evidence for that?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
There have of course been developments regarding ACT's legislation on >>>>>the Treaty, and "Getting Back on Track" is proving to mean different >>>>>things to different parts of the government - see this article:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/how-the-treaty-strengthens-democracy-and-provides-a-check-on-unbridled-power-dominic-osullivan/UTUMQGDGCNDR7DV73FIXFKSIOM/
and then
https://archive.li/DYiGH from a journalist with good contacts within >>>>>the National Party
and from a couple of days later this: >>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/national-and-act-are-failing-the-good-faith-test-over-treaty-principles-bill-matthew-hooton/MTKZFN6HPFBFDIT3GIYOKEFWAM/
(also available at : https://archive.li/eOrVe )
Now we have this: >>>https://thestandard.org.nz/the-week-luxon-lost-his-moral-mandate-to-lead/ >>>
which gave links and some quotes from >>>https://www.politik.co.nz/ratanas-trumpet-sounds-a-warning/
(Behind a paywall sadly, but written by Richard Harman who was in the >>>early years a valued poster to nz.general)
and >>>https://teara.govt.nz/en/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-nga-matapono-o-te-tiriti-o-waitangi/page-2
(A reminder of a few legal facts)
and >>>https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2401/S00023/on-treaty-principles-and-nikki-haleys-false-dawn.htm
There was also a programme on Radio New Zealand yesterday summarising
the Voice referendum, and pointing out the high number of lies and >>>misleading statements from the Atlas Network promoting a no vote, we >>>could expect a similar dishonest campaign should the sort of
referendum ACT is pushing for happen in New Zealand.
I und the link Listen to: >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018923635
This gives the history and an analysis, and goes on to cover the ways
in which oganisations such as the NZ Taxpayer Union exploit and
finance destructive campaigns that are not honest but play on fears of >>minority groups. With each of the Government coalition parties having >>links to the NZ Taxpayer Union, it is worth spending 25 minutes to
hear how such organisations work . .
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:53:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt's your accusation. It is up to you to prove they do.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:37:31 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Irrelevant - ACT has no such connection or indeed any part of our government. >And your evidence for that?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
There have of course been developments regarding ACT's legislation on >>>>>>the Treaty, and "Getting Back on Track" is proving to mean different >>>>>>things to different parts of the government - see this article:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/how-the-treaty-strengthens-democracy-and-provides-a-check-on-unbridled-power-dominic-osullivan/UTUMQGDGCNDR7DV73FIXFKSIOM/
and then
https://archive.li/DYiGH from a journalist with good contacts within >>>>>>the National Party
and from a couple of days later this: >>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/national-and-act-are-failing-the-good-faith-test-over-treaty-principles-bill-matthew-hooton/MTKZFN6HPFBFDIT3GIYOKEFWAM/
(also available at : https://archive.li/eOrVe )
Now we have this: >>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/the-week-luxon-lost-his-moral-mandate-to-lead/ >>>>
which gave links and some quotes from >>>>https://www.politik.co.nz/ratanas-trumpet-sounds-a-warning/
(Behind a paywall sadly, but written by Richard Harman who was in the >>>>early years a valued poster to nz.general)
and >>>>https://teara.govt.nz/en/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-nga-matapono-o-te-tiriti-o-waitangi/page-2
(A reminder of a few legal facts)
and >>>>https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2401/S00023/on-treaty-principles-and-nikki-haleys-false-dawn.htm
There was also a programme on Radio New Zealand yesterday summarising >>>>the Voice referendum, and pointing out the high number of lies and >>>>misleading statements from the Atlas Network promoting a no vote, we >>>>could expect a similar dishonest campaign should the sort of
referendum ACT is pushing for happen in New Zealand.
I und the link Listen to: >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018923635
This gives the history and an analysis, and goes on to cover the ways
in which oganisations such as the NZ Taxpayer Union exploit and
finance destructive campaigns that are not honest but play on fears of >>>minority groups. With each of the Government coalition parties having >>>links to the NZ Taxpayer Union, it is worth spending 25 minutes to
hear how such organisations work . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:37:31 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:Irrelevant - ACT has no such connection or indeed any part of our government.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
There have of course been developments regarding ACT's legislation on >>>>>the Treaty, and "Getting Back on Track" is proving to mean different >>>>>things to different parts of the government - see this article:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/how-the-treaty-strengthens-democracy-and-provides-a-check-on-unbridled-power-dominic-osullivan/UTUMQGDGCNDR7DV73FIXFKSIOM/
and then
https://archive.li/DYiGH from a journalist with good contacts within >>>>>the National Party
and from a couple of days later this: >>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/national-and-act-are-failing-the-good-faith-test-over-treaty-principles-bill-matthew-hooton/MTKZFN6HPFBFDIT3GIYOKEFWAM/
(also available at : https://archive.li/eOrVe )
Now we have this: >>>https://thestandard.org.nz/the-week-luxon-lost-his-moral-mandate-to-lead/ >>>
which gave links and some quotes from >>>https://www.politik.co.nz/ratanas-trumpet-sounds-a-warning/
(Behind a paywall sadly, but written by Richard Harman who was in the >>>early years a valued poster to nz.general)
and >>>https://teara.govt.nz/en/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-nga-matapono-o-te-tiriti-o-waitangi/page-2
(A reminder of a few legal facts)
and >>>https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2401/S00023/on-treaty-principles-and-nikki-haleys-false-dawn.htm
There was also a programme on Radio New Zealand yesterday summarising
the Voice referendum, and pointing out the high number of lies and >>>misleading statements from the Atlas Network promoting a no vote, we >>>could expect a similar dishonest campaign should the sort of
referendum ACT is pushing for happen in New Zealand.
I und the link Listen to: >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018923635
This gives the history and an analysis, and goes on to cover the ways
in which oganisations such as the NZ Taxpayer Union exploit and
finance destructive campaigns that are not honest but play on fears of >>minority groups. With each of the Government coalition parties having >>links to the NZ Taxpayer Union, it is worth spending 25 minutes to
hear how such organisations work . .
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:53:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:37:31 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Irrelevant - ACT has no such connection or indeed any part of our government.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
There have of course been developments regarding ACT's legislation on >>>>>>the Treaty, and "Getting Back on Track" is proving to mean different >>>>>>things to different parts of the government - see this article:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/how-the-treaty-strengthens-democracy-and-provides-a-check-on-unbridled-power-dominic-osullivan/UTUMQGDGCNDR7DV73FIXFKSIOM/
and then
https://archive.li/DYiGH from a journalist with good contacts within >>>>>>the National Party
and from a couple of days later this: >>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/national-and-act-are-failing-the-good-faith-test-over-treaty-principles-bill-matthew-hooton/MTKZFN6HPFBFDIT3GIYOKEFWAM/
(also available at : https://archive.li/eOrVe )
Now we have this: >>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/the-week-luxon-lost-his-moral-mandate-to-lead/ >>>>
which gave links and some quotes from >>>>https://www.politik.co.nz/ratanas-trumpet-sounds-a-warning/
(Behind a paywall sadly, but written by Richard Harman who was in the >>>>early years a valued poster to nz.general)
and >>>>https://teara.govt.nz/en/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-nga-matapono-o-te-tiriti-o-waitangi/page-2
(A reminder of a few legal facts)
and >>>>https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2401/S00023/on-treaty-principles-and-nikki-haleys-false-dawn.htm
There was also a programme on Radio New Zealand yesterday summarising >>>>the Voice referendum, and pointing out the high number of lies and >>>>misleading statements from the Atlas Network promoting a no vote, we >>>>could expect a similar dishonest campaign should the sort of
referendum ACT is pushing for happen in New Zealand.
I und the link Listen to: >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018923635
This gives the history and an analysis, and goes on to cover the ways
in which oganisations such as the NZ Taxpayer Union exploit and
finance destructive campaigns that are not honest but play on fears of >>>minority groups. With each of the Government coalition parties having >>>links to the NZ Taxpayer Union, it is worth spending 25 minutes to
hear how such organisations work . .
Look at https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/our_team
and read through the backgrounds of those people - then bear in mind
that Casey Costello resigned from the Chair of the Taxpayers Union to
stand in the 2023 general election, and is now Minister of Customs and >Minister for Seniors. Then look at which parties benefit from the
political activities of the Taxpayers Union . . .
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 02:53:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyBullshit.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:37:31 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Irrelevant - ACT has no such connection or indeed any part of our government.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
There have of course been developments regarding ACT's legislation on >>>>>>the Treaty, and "Getting Back on Track" is proving to mean different >>>>>>things to different parts of the government - see this article:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/how-the-treaty-strengthens-democracy-and-provides-a-check-on-unbridled-power-dominic-osullivan/UTUMQGDGCNDR7DV73FIXFKSIOM/
and then
https://archive.li/DYiGH from a journalist with good contacts within >>>>>>the National Party
and from a couple of days later this: >>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/national-and-act-are-failing-the-good-faith-test-over-treaty-principles-bill-matthew-hooton/MTKZFN6HPFBFDIT3GIYOKEFWAM/
(also available at : https://archive.li/eOrVe )
Now we have this: >>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/the-week-luxon-lost-his-moral-mandate-to-lead/ >>>>
which gave links and some quotes from >>>>https://www.politik.co.nz/ratanas-trumpet-sounds-a-warning/
(Behind a paywall sadly, but written by Richard Harman who was in the >>>>early years a valued poster to nz.general)
and >>>>https://teara.govt.nz/en/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-nga-matapono-o-te-tiriti-o-waitangi/page-2
(A reminder of a few legal facts)
and >>>>https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2401/S00023/on-treaty-principles-and-nikki-haleys-false-dawn.htm
There was also a programme on Radio New Zealand yesterday summarising >>>>the Voice referendum, and pointing out the high number of lies and >>>>misleading statements from the Atlas Network promoting a no vote, we >>>>could expect a similar dishonest campaign should the sort of
referendum ACT is pushing for happen in New Zealand.
I und the link Listen to: >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018923635
This gives the history and an analysis, and goes on to cover the ways
in which oganisations such as the NZ Taxpayer Union exploit and
finance destructive campaigns that are not honest but play on fears of >>>minority groups. With each of the Government coalition parties having >>>links to the NZ Taxpayer Union, it is worth spending 25 minutes to
hear how such organisations work . .
Look at https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/our_team
and read through the backgrounds of those people - then bear in mind
that Casey Costello resigned from the Chair of the Taxpayers Union to
stand in the 2023 general election, and is now Minister of Customs and >Minister for Seniors. Then look at which parties benefit from the
political activities of the Taxpayers Union . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 120:19:48 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,210 |
| Messages: | 5,334,422 |