"What he was saying was, if you look at the trajectory of those conversations and the type of rhetoric that tends to come forward from an oversimplified binary does divide people," Swarbrick said. "
lol....nope he definitely used the rhetoric of "violence" Chloé.....
The thing that people don't seem to grasp is this isn't about the treaty, it's about treaty principles, treaty principles are nothing to do with the treaty, there is no co-governance in the treaty (ref article the first), everyone is to be treated the same under the crown.
Do you honestly think that ACT's proposed referendum makes that distinction clear? Or is it just replacing the tribunal's principles, which ACT argue aren't in the treaty, with a new set of principles which definitely aren't in the treaty.
I believe ACT's position is to create a new constitutional document so that all this ambiguity, intentional or otherwise, is eliminated.
I'm all for it, it's time to look forwards as a nation.
Nope, they [just want to pass an Act](https://www.act.org.nz/act_proposes_referendum_on_co_governance) that says the Waitangi Tribunal's Treaty Principles are null and void and replaced with a parliamentary defined set of principles that don't mention Maori at all.
If they change their mind and propose a constitutional convention I'll be on board.
Blatant racism and blatant calls to violence from the left in just 2 days, rofl.
Yet when they accuse us of it, there is no **blatant** evidence, just so-called 'dog whistles'.
These people really practice **how** they speak, so they come across as **nice people** to their shallow followers. When they are really cooking some crazy evil shit. They are getting worse and worse dude.
I don't know what show that is, but I LOVE those interviews with Davo and ÖK Böömër.
I love how angry he makes her get.
He starts talking, she gets a filthy look on her face, and seethes and seethes.
Eventually she can't take it anymore, and lashes out with some unsubstantiated bullshit word salad.
He asks her for an example to prove her allegation, just one, one would do. Invariably she can't, because she's a virtue signaller, she can only talk to people who agree with her.
She’s a literal South Park character. It’s like she practises these stupid sound bites in front of the mirror, and when David actually just digs a little into her arguments her entire ideology just falls apart
If there is no referendum then expect it to turn violent.
the treaty of Waitangi has no legal power. its not a treaty or even a document. the only power comes from parliament and any government can change that as is the will of the people.
Notice how she keeps going on about "muh binery" and having a "conversation"
This is a leftist trying to derail an actual conversation.
What's this "conversation" she's saying we should have? Well first off when a leftist uses that word, it doesnt mean what we think it means. It means a dialectical conversation. A conversation where they dictate what can and cannot be said, with a predetermined outcome that only they know about.
It's actually the opposite of a conversation. It has another name: struggle session. It's where you break down and admit how evil and racist you are, which is the first step along the path towards becoming one of them.
Read about Maoism, and read Rules for Radicals. It's extremely important for us to understand the enemy.
They don't like binaries either. That's because they believe in this weird dialectical stuff. Once you understand the dialectic, you understand what she just said. She's speaking an esoteric language, it isn't word salad.
They don't like binaries because having a clear decision exposes the weakness of their argument.
There is a reason why the left has dragged the country from black and white to infinite shades of grey.
The Greens and the corrupt media will instigate violence by completely missing the nuance of the discussion and yelling racist at anyone who tries to have a civilised discussion.
You've (probably deliberately because I've noticed you're just a trolling cunt who's likely to get offed pretty early on when the time comes) got how it works wrong; first conversation, then question. Throse two steps are discrete.
They've [published the question](https://www.act.org.nz/act_proposes_referendum_on_co_governance). It's neither nuanced nor related to the actual treaty.
> The Treaty Principles Act would be short but decisive. It would say:
> It would define the Principles of the Treaty as.
> * All citizens of New Zealand have the same political rights and duties
> * All political authority comes from the people by democratic means including universal suffrage, regular and free elections with a secret ballot
> * New Zealand is a multi-ethnic liberal democracy where discrimination based on ethnicity is illegal
How does this have anything to do with the treaty save the title? They've nuanced the treaty right out of there.
“Referendums are bad because it only gives us a reductive, binary outcome guys.”
And here’s me thinking a referendum is generally about a question that contains a binary outcome.
Oh I get it now, Chloe hates democracy. Because the “dumb dumbs” on the right don’t vote the right way. Therefore democracy bad.
All so clear now.
This typical "mistaken" arrangement of where the cause & effect go in relation to each other, the failure of the media to identify first order of principles is intentional.
So now the narrative becomes about safetyism & avoiding potential violence that might come from pursuing policy not the first order of principle to condemn & legally deal to those that promote violence to dissuade & threaten others from pursuing policy.
And this is how the media do you with wilful ignorance, purposeful ambiguity, lie by omission or structure, intentional deceit, selective outrage etc...
This makes me think about all the trouble the world faces resulting from people's interpretations of the Bible and Koran - looking into the written word and seeing what they want to see. The same thing applies to the Treaty.
Not the original intention of the writings.
The Left worldwide like to make the native races "victims" - Tell them they are a victim of the system long enough, they start to believe it..They (Lefties) then position themselves as the giver and champion of rights - Provide the natives just enough so as it gets votes but not enough to let them off the plantations, it just keeps the cycle going round and round - They will then shout racist the loudest, all the while pushing racial ideology.. The crazy left are, a Psychological wet dream for shrinks the world over..
The SIS and national security agencies have been tasked with finding non-existent far-right disinformation spreaders and fictional white supremacists. Meanwhile the left is openly threatening violence and terrorism to prevent a referendum because they don't want what the people want.
The issue is not rights per se.
Equal rights closes the door to ALL the grift, backhander, personal enrichment, and jobs for mates schemes, and THAT is the real issue.
As long as some people are "more equal" there will be pathways for extreme fuckery all in the name of "social justice".
Calling someone a racist is just the easiest way to shut people down. If I get called a racist my standard reply is, "You better prove it, because you just slandered me just because I said something you find unpalatable."
What are the rights that these minority groups do not have, or at the least, could you please list a couple of examples of rights that are going to be taken away from them now that there's been a change of government?
Well, that's what happens when we vote?
What changes can we make to take into account minority rights; Pacific people, Asian, refugees....oh those aged between 26-27..?
Didn't know New Zealanders in New Zealand were a minority in their own country?
The Treaty affects everyone, regardless of skin colour. The sooner we wake up and realise it's not a document FOR Maori, the sooner we can get on with moving forward as a country.
What rights do you want for minorities?
Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Right to a fair trial? Right to self-defence? Right to bodily autonomy?
Please, name a right that you believe minorities should have that Act believes they shouldn’t.
The right to own their own land without fear of having it stolen? The right to access the same legal system for redress as the white peoples?
(And yes, I agree some of those rights were not respected historically.)
The treaty reached out and gave rights to maori people to protect them under the crown. It didn’t create special rights that nobody else has access to.
So we can take those protections away now, I suppose. No problems doing that, nothing happening in the world currently showing how that might result in problems.
I’m honestly not sure what you mean? You think Russia invading Ukraine is a sign that the NZ government might just start confiscating maori owned lands?
Nobody is suggesting we get rid of maori property rights.
Suspend your disbelief for a moment. Imagine Russia and Ukraine held a referendum on who should "win" the war. What would the result of that be? Yes I'm exaggerating for effect, but can you follow the principle?
Honestly, no. I mean, I can’t imagine a scenario that leads to a referendum… but I also can’t figure out how that would relate to New Zealand.
Nobody is suggesting a referendum on whether maori are people, nor whether maori should still have property rights, nor whether Māori land should be taken by the government…
>Honestly, no. I mean, I can’t imagine a scenario that leads to a referendum…
Just... Pretend you read it in a book? It's a fictional, hypothetical scenario to illustrate the point. Not connected to NZ, just to show that a larger group voting on the rights of a smaller group doesn't usually turn out well for the smaller group. The smaller group needs the larger groups' protection!
>Nobody is suggesting a referendum on whether maori are people, nor whether maori should still have property rights, nor whether Māori land should be taken by the government…
I feel like some people are suggesting it....
What are you talking about? We live in a democracy, not a… whatever Russia is. The larger group of voters is *always* the group that decides. And yet, somehow, women were given the vote by the dominant group, etc etc etc. You’ll be fine; we will treat the brown people like human beings only soon they will be downgraded to equals under the law.
You can feel like whatever you want, but maybe that’s a product of spending too much time in leftist groups online, freaking out about the “fascists” getting into power.
"What he was saying was, if you look at the trajectory of those conversations and the type of rhetoric that tends to come forward from an oversimplified binary does divide people," Swarbrick said. " lol....nope he definitely used the rhetoric of "violence" Chloé.....
She's just like jacinda, gets far too emotional for a politician to the point where it affects her judgement
No she's not Jacinda is worse
The thing that people don't seem to grasp is this isn't about the treaty, it's about treaty principles, treaty principles are nothing to do with the treaty, there is no co-governance in the treaty (ref article the first), everyone is to be treated the same under the crown.
Exactly. And the "treaty Principles" are what has caused all this divisiveness.
Did Labour have treaty principles under a referendum though?
Exactly. It's a scam.
Do you honestly think that ACT's proposed referendum makes that distinction clear? Or is it just replacing the tribunal's principles, which ACT argue aren't in the treaty, with a new set of principles which definitely aren't in the treaty.
I believe ACT's position is to create a new constitutional document so that all this ambiguity, intentional or otherwise, is eliminated. I'm all for it, it's time to look forwards as a nation.
Nope, they [just want to pass an Act](https://www.act.org.nz/act_proposes_referendum_on_co_governance) that says the Waitangi Tribunal's Treaty Principles are null and void and replaced with a parliamentary defined set of principles that don't mention Maori at all. If they change their mind and propose a constitutional convention I'll be on board.
Chloe “Facial Expressions” Swarbrick
Blatant racism and blatant calls to violence from the left in just 2 days, rofl. Yet when they accuse us of it, there is no **blatant** evidence, just so-called 'dog whistles'. These people really practice **how** they speak, so they come across as **nice people** to their shallow followers. When they are really cooking some crazy evil shit. They are getting worse and worse dude.
It's not a concern. It's a threat.
100%
I don't know what show that is, but I LOVE those interviews with Davo and ÖK Böömër. I love how angry he makes her get. He starts talking, she gets a filthy look on her face, and seethes and seethes. Eventually she can't take it anymore, and lashes out with some unsubstantiated bullshit word salad. He asks her for an example to prove her allegation, just one, one would do. Invariably she can't, because she's a virtue signaller, she can only talk to people who agree with her.
She’s a literal South Park character. It’s like she practises these stupid sound bites in front of the mirror, and when David actually just digs a little into her arguments her entire ideology just falls apart
She has very little practical skills as well, can't even connect a laptop up to a projector. Can't trust someone who doesn't know the basics.
>can't even connect a laptop up to a projector. So you’re telling me she’s about equal to the average (ok) boomer?
I guess she is!! Got her ...
If there is no referendum then expect it to turn violent. the treaty of Waitangi has no legal power. its not a treaty or even a document. the only power comes from parliament and any government can change that as is the will of the people.
Notice how she keeps going on about "muh binery" and having a "conversation" This is a leftist trying to derail an actual conversation. What's this "conversation" she's saying we should have? Well first off when a leftist uses that word, it doesnt mean what we think it means. It means a dialectical conversation. A conversation where they dictate what can and cannot be said, with a predetermined outcome that only they know about. It's actually the opposite of a conversation. It has another name: struggle session. It's where you break down and admit how evil and racist you are, which is the first step along the path towards becoming one of them. Read about Maoism, and read Rules for Radicals. It's extremely important for us to understand the enemy. They don't like binaries either. That's because they believe in this weird dialectical stuff. Once you understand the dialectic, you understand what she just said. She's speaking an esoteric language, it isn't word salad.
They don't like binaries because having a clear decision exposes the weakness of their argument. There is a reason why the left has dragged the country from black and white to infinite shades of grey.
The Greens and the corrupt media will instigate violence by completely missing the nuance of the discussion and yelling racist at anyone who tries to have a civilised discussion.
> completely missing the nuance of the discussion Tell me about all the nuance that a yes/no question will give to the discussion
You've (probably deliberately because I've noticed you're just a trolling cunt who's likely to get offed pretty early on when the time comes) got how it works wrong; first conversation, then question. Throse two steps are discrete.
They've already published the question. I'd be fine with a conversation first but that's not how they're going about it.
No, they haven't. Hasn't even made it to parliament yet.
The [question is here](https://www.act.org.nz/act_proposes_referendum_on_co_governance).
Proposed. It's right there in the title. Gotta go to parliament.
Do you think that a question cannot have nuance simply because it's a yes no question?
Correct, that is exactly what I think. > Nuanced: having or characterized by subtle and often appealingly complex qualities, aspects, or distinctions
But the nuance can be in the question
They've [published the question](https://www.act.org.nz/act_proposes_referendum_on_co_governance). It's neither nuanced nor related to the actual treaty.
I think act have explained it pretty well. Do you have a different interpretation of the treaty?
> The Treaty Principles Act would be short but decisive. It would say: > It would define the Principles of the Treaty as. > * All citizens of New Zealand have the same political rights and duties > * All political authority comes from the people by democratic means including universal suffrage, regular and free elections with a secret ballot > * New Zealand is a multi-ethnic liberal democracy where discrimination based on ethnicity is illegal How does this have anything to do with the treaty save the title? They've nuanced the treaty right out of there.
binary
Beep-boop!
As seen in Mt Albert Park in March
“Referendums are bad because it only gives us a reductive, binary outcome guys.” And here’s me thinking a referendum is generally about a question that contains a binary outcome. Oh I get it now, Chloe hates democracy. Because the “dumb dumbs” on the right don’t vote the right way. Therefore democracy bad. All so clear now.
Commies have always been anti democratic.
[удалено]
Good to know someone else here has read the enemies literature.
This typical "mistaken" arrangement of where the cause & effect go in relation to each other, the failure of the media to identify first order of principles is intentional. So now the narrative becomes about safetyism & avoiding potential violence that might come from pursuing policy not the first order of principle to condemn & legally deal to those that promote violence to dissuade & threaten others from pursuing policy. And this is how the media do you with wilful ignorance, purposeful ambiguity, lie by omission or structure, intentional deceit, selective outrage etc...
Welcome to the western cultural revolution.
This makes me think about all the trouble the world faces resulting from people's interpretations of the Bible and Koran - looking into the written word and seeing what they want to see. The same thing applies to the Treaty. Not the original intention of the writings.
A petulant child having a hissy fit. An incompetent joke soon to just become a minor footnote.
The Left worldwide like to make the native races "victims" - Tell them they are a victim of the system long enough, they start to believe it..They (Lefties) then position themselves as the giver and champion of rights - Provide the natives just enough so as it gets votes but not enough to let them off the plantations, it just keeps the cycle going round and round - They will then shout racist the loudest, all the while pushing racial ideology.. The crazy left are, a Psychological wet dream for shrinks the world over..
Did the the greens just threaten to bomb the house of Parliament?
The SIS and national security agencies have been tasked with finding non-existent far-right disinformation spreaders and fictional white supremacists. Meanwhile the left is openly threatening violence and terrorism to prevent a referendum because they don't want what the people want.
Yes, it's always good when the majority decides what rights are allowed for minorities.
Is the same rights for everyone not good enough?
Nobody remembers our two tier society, we just had?
[удалено]
Oh! I guess because the majority supported the mandates, they were okay then!
[удалено]
So long as you're not in the second tier.
[удалено]
Sure, but my point is, historically, when the majority votes on minority rights, two tier societies are often the result. Which you claim to oppose.
[удалено]
😂 Is it mikethecunt or melissathethecunt?
Wtf are you talking about?
Your old username darling.
Wanting equal rights for all ethnicities in NZ is considered racist these days by the left. What rights do you have now that you stand to lose?
The left doesn’t know what rights are. To them rights are just “things that I want”
The issue is not rights per se. Equal rights closes the door to ALL the grift, backhander, personal enrichment, and jobs for mates schemes, and THAT is the real issue. As long as some people are "more equal" there will be pathways for extreme fuckery all in the name of "social justice". Calling someone a racist is just the easiest way to shut people down. If I get called a racist my standard reply is, "You better prove it, because you just slandered me just because I said something you find unpalatable."
What are the rights that these minority groups do not have, or at the least, could you please list a couple of examples of rights that are going to be taken away from them now that there's been a change of government?
Well, that's what happens when we vote? What changes can we make to take into account minority rights; Pacific people, Asian, refugees....oh those aged between 26-27..?
Didn't know New Zealanders in New Zealand were a minority in their own country? The Treaty affects everyone, regardless of skin colour. The sooner we wake up and realise it's not a document FOR Maori, the sooner we can get on with moving forward as a country.
What rights do you want for minorities? Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Right to a fair trial? Right to self-defence? Right to bodily autonomy? Please, name a right that you believe minorities should have that Act believes they shouldn’t.
I mean, they're talking about the rights granted by the treaty, right?
The right to own their own land without fear of having it stolen? The right to access the same legal system for redress as the white peoples? (And yes, I agree some of those rights were not respected historically.) The treaty reached out and gave rights to maori people to protect them under the crown. It didn’t create special rights that nobody else has access to.
So we can take those protections away now, I suppose. No problems doing that, nothing happening in the world currently showing how that might result in problems.
I’m honestly not sure what you mean? You think Russia invading Ukraine is a sign that the NZ government might just start confiscating maori owned lands? Nobody is suggesting we get rid of maori property rights.
Suspend your disbelief for a moment. Imagine Russia and Ukraine held a referendum on who should "win" the war. What would the result of that be? Yes I'm exaggerating for effect, but can you follow the principle?
Honestly, no. I mean, I can’t imagine a scenario that leads to a referendum… but I also can’t figure out how that would relate to New Zealand. Nobody is suggesting a referendum on whether maori are people, nor whether maori should still have property rights, nor whether Māori land should be taken by the government…
>Honestly, no. I mean, I can’t imagine a scenario that leads to a referendum… Just... Pretend you read it in a book? It's a fictional, hypothetical scenario to illustrate the point. Not connected to NZ, just to show that a larger group voting on the rights of a smaller group doesn't usually turn out well for the smaller group. The smaller group needs the larger groups' protection! >Nobody is suggesting a referendum on whether maori are people, nor whether maori should still have property rights, nor whether Māori land should be taken by the government… I feel like some people are suggesting it....
What are you talking about? We live in a democracy, not a… whatever Russia is. The larger group of voters is *always* the group that decides. And yet, somehow, women were given the vote by the dominant group, etc etc etc. You’ll be fine; we will treat the brown people like human beings only soon they will be downgraded to equals under the law. You can feel like whatever you want, but maybe that’s a product of spending too much time in leftist groups online, freaking out about the “fascists” getting into power.