Yesterday Matt and I participated in filming a debate on the Treaty of Waitangi. The moot was “That the Treaty of Waitangi is holding NZ back.” There were four panelists, Stephen Franks, Tim Wikiriwhi, Matthew Hooten and Hana O’Regan and an active audience, of which Matt and I were asked to be members of to represent blogging New Zealand (apparently they considered David Farrar but decided we’d be more interesting on the basis of Matt’s blog post, Maori and Pakeha are Not Partners to the Treaty of Waitangi).
The audience, who comprised a range of commentators, Members of Parliament and even activist John Minto, were expected to comment and ask questions, which we dutifully did. Who knows if we’ll make the editing room cut, or how what we said will play on screen (it always feels different in the moment to how it looks on air I find) – one way to find out I guess!
The debate will screen on Marae tomorrow morning, Saturday, 6 Feb, from 8:00am – 9:30am on TV One.
Here is a brief rundown of our thoughts:
- Speaker of the Day goes to Stephen Franks for presenting the best case and for managing to use terms like “fake treaty”, “bogus” and “spurious” whilst still managing to come across calm, pleasant and reasonable.
- The Most Inflammatory award goes to Tim Wikiriwhi – you can read his transcript at Not PC. The award was for his student-politician-styled-delivery coupled with claims later on in the debate that there had not been a single past injustice towards Maori, which earned him shocked and awed hissing. (That aside his message was good and his historical claims were fascinating.)
- Best Impersonation of Peter Dunne award goes to Matthew Hooten for trying to take the middle ground and please everyone whilst effectively saying nothing but sounding profound.
- The Loonie Leftie Why–Didn’t–Her–Over-Sized–Tiki–Explode? award goes to Hana O’Regan for (and it was hard to pick a winner from the many incoherent and internally inconsistent examples she had on offer) arguing for the confiscation of property (tax dollars) to support the promotion of Maori language “because it is beautiful” [so too is the NZ countryside] citing the Treaty as justification for said confiscation of property (I kid you not!). We both called her on this in the Q&A.
- Funniest Moment was when the producer decided that our paper voting forms didn’t look so good on camera so had the audience pretend to push invisible electronic voting buttons and to vote multiple times so that the camera could grab a range of shots. Shane Taurima, the host, completely lost it with laughter when he delivered the instructions to the audience to push the green button for the affirmative and the red button for the negative “on the small electronic device you see before you” and he had to re-shoot it. (Then they decided to have us vote with the paper ballots).
I must note that at the beginning of the debate the audience was asked for a show of hands as to who was for the motion and who was against it. At the outset less than 5 people were for the motion. This is an important consideration to factor into the voting results announced at the end of the debate. As Stephen said to me afterwards, I think the for’s won it as they gained votes and the againsts lost them.
RELATED POSTS:
Maori and Pakeha are Not Partners to the Treaty of Waitangi
Tags: Hana O'Regan · John Minto · Marae · Matthew Hooten · Shane Taurima · Stephen Franks · Tim Wikiriwhi · Treaty of Waitangi · TV One · TVNZ9 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
O’Regan was awful, I skipped through most of her repetitive inane blather. She advocated an endless treaty gravy train and open ended negotiations where the rest of NZ are treated like peasants paying homage to Maori tribes. Similar to another lady who thinks the treaty is for her mokopuna.. because it grants them racist privileges available to no other NZer. It seems the Treaty has become more important than the Bible to some people; she wants all NZers to ‘carry the Treaty in their hearts’ whatever that means. I presume she meant white guilt and kissing up to Maori radicals.
Tim Whikiriwhi was a breath of fresh air, questioning the prevailing narrative and slanted history of NZ and race relations.
.-= My last blog-post ..The Illusion of Consumer Culture =-.
[…] the Treaty of Waitangi M and M : View “Marae: The Great Waitangi Debate” here M and M : Tune in to Marae tomorrow M and M : Maori and Pakeha are not partners to the Treaty of Waitangi Not PC : Why the Treaty is […]
Just watched the video and would have laughed if it wasn’t such a serious issue.
Tim-angry-but-dim, forgets about 130 years of oppression.
And David Round, what a hill-billy? These sorts of people have no grasp on how history and society can affect people.
Matt’s question was along the same lines, how can you not understand the Government’s role in maintaining and promoting a disappearing language after they nearly wiped it out? One people means one people, not one culture.
Not one single past injustice? If you go by laws then Tim-angry-but-dim is right, Pakeha always covered themselves with laws like the Native Lands Acts, but it was stealing. Just as dictators have written laws to protect themselves from their crimes. Its a legal injustice if you want to put it like that.
Ropata, its a shame you never listened to O’Regan, if you are so sure of your beliefs and positions you should challenge them on a regular basis, that’s why I’m here. I regularly visit rightwing/religious blogs to see if I can improve on my thinking/beliefs……….no improvements yet.
Another funny thing I noticed was that John Minto came across as the most balanced and fair person there, maybe that’s just me
Tu Hoe terrorist supporter John Minto was the most balanced?
It appears that an insult from Jerry surely is a badge of honor!
I recall someone once said…A good man is known better by his enemies than his friends…Thanks Jerry!
Jerry you write “Matt’s question was along the same lines, how can you not understand the Government’s role in maintaining and promoting a disappearing language after they nearly wiped it out? One people means one people, not one culture.”
It seems that you did not listen carefully to my question. I did not ask whether the government had a role in maintaining and promoting Maori language. I asked where in the text of the Treaty one can find anything that requires the government to do this.
As to your answer to a question I did not ask, I am not so sure, your answer is correct seems to assume that if the state attempts to wipe something out it then has a duty to promote it.
But that’s seems to me to be false. It’s a fact that the former communist governments of various countries attempted to wipe out Christianity, similarly some Islamic countries to do also attempt this, does it follow these countires have a duty to set up state churches, promote Christinity and teach it as a compulsory subject in public schools?
“Another funny thing I noticed was that John Minto came across as the most balanced and fair person there, maybe that’s just me”
Minto’s claims were questionable; he suggested that the reason that Maori were the lowest achievers in every social indicator was due to colonization. Apart from the fact that Maori are not the lowest achievers on these indicators ( pacific Islanders are). Minto’s claim seems clearly false, take the social indicator of literacy or doing well in public school. Is Minto suggesting that if Colonization had not occurred Maori would have higher literacy or do better at public schools? Obviously not, if there had been no colonization there would be no public schools and no written language at all. You can argue that the way colonization occurred has harmed Maori and they could have done better if it had been implemented a different way, but its false to suggest colonization itself caused these problems.
.-= My last blog-post ..Property Rights: Blackstone, Locke and the Legislative Scheme Part II =-.
Madeleine…You have made some great points here. Your property rights piece is great too!
Anti-British/Western colonisation is at the heart of the Indigenous rights debate is akin to the global warming scam which emanates form the same socialists and is aimed at the same thing (the destruction of Western values)which is why you find the Green party and the Maori party are kissing cousins and why socialists like Minto are in the thick of it all.
Minto would have us believe that what happened in SA, America and Australia may be used as evidence against the historical colonisation of New Zealand s if they were all the same Imperialist evils…which is a travesty that denies the benevolent spirit behind the treaty of Waitangi…ie The equal rights of settler and Native.
Socialists like Minto are fanatical haters of Western ideals and values and are active members of the theory of indirect world socialist revolution against capitalism and freedom. They will support terrorists if that will further their goals because the socialists believes the end justifies the means. ..which is another reason they usually are vehement Anti-Christ’s. (That so many foolish Christians support these antichrists and their evil doctrines is a testimony to how successfully the socialists have infiltrated the church and spread their doctrines of devils…even convincing the church that Christ was an anti capitalist communist!)
This covert action is well documented (It is not all cold war propaganda as these socialists want you to think)
Just as when Bin Laden destroyed the trade towers, Minto and Co would have praised and defended Tama iti for murdering white people (had he not been discovered in time) because in his hate of our western values he collectivizes all not Maori as oppressors and thus in his mind they all deserve to be murdered by the likes of Iti whom he sees as a champion of Anti western values…a champion of his world socialist revolution.
He thinks separatism that favours Western Whites are apartheid but that favoritism that favours anti western coloreds is just!
He would have everyone believe that Savage Pre-European Maori were noble savages and that their society and values were superior to western Christendom, and that Brittan invaded NZ with the idea to destroy the Maori and plunder their wealth.
He’s has as a heart as black as coal and as forked a tongue as Beelzebub himself!
I fight for zero favoritism…ie strictly limited government and absolute equality before the law.
[…] Our review and thoughts is here. […]
My view of the debate is based on my view that the treaty doesn’t represent agreement on the issue of soveriegnty (Maori massively out numbering Europeans at the time) and I can’t see Britain agreeing to Chiefly rule of British citizens. Many people draw the conclusion that the treaty is good and workable (eg Steven Franks). If you want to be technical , however you go down the Green party road and use the international law which says where there is disagreement the indigenous version stands.
The left like to use the treaty to bash pakeha over the head but don’t like to go into details about what it might mean. This was demonstrated in the debate where David Round asks:
“I’m curious to wonder how far Hana’s interpretation of the treaty goes because the treaty is used at present to promote Maori soveriegnty and some prominent people including the leader of the Maori party and the head of Maori studies at Auckland University arguing that that means rule of NZ by Maori with everyone else as second class citizens. I get the impression from Hana that when she talks about “working together” that she wouldn’t go that far…..
Hana O’Regan “I’ve never heard the leader of the Maori party talk about everyone else being second class citizens and I do not believe that that is what they espouce. But I do
.. Jacinda talks about talk of soveriegnty being about [ungrounded] “fear”….
….
I had to scratch my head to recall what Tariana Turia has said. She moulds her words to make them sound o.k but what David Round says is true as demonstrated by this speech here:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0803/S00077.htm
to whom it may concern
ignorance of the law is no excuse.
anyone can say almost anything and be believed on face value. the simple man believes what he hears, the wise man tests to see if it is true.
the truth is in the spirit of the law, more compelling than any other power simply due to its refinement, accuracy and repercussion.
its power is more than merely academic and can silence any response in terms of embodying a force.
indeed almost every one alive today knows this to be a scientific fact, natural cause to govern phenomena.
due dilligence and reasoned research only hurts if your doing it wrong.
a known trap can be avoided,
john ru