(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

Today, in a shock piece of real news on the front page, the Dominion Post ran a very short article in which they quoted Tariana Turia as saying that Pacific Islanders should be able to vote on the Maori electorate roll.

      [Labour MP Shane Jones] said the Maori roll was a constitutional right.
      Its future would be best settled by Maori voters; it was not "some kind
       [of] largesse for (Mrs Turia) to hand out as a political gimmick".

      Mrs Turia said Mr Jones should spend more time sticking up for Maori and
      less time attacking the party for cheap political points.

Multiple choice, kids: statements like this demonstrate

a) Mrs Turia is a brilliant, innovative and open politician
b) Mrs Turia is a little misguided and/or flaky
c) Mrs Turia is an idiot
d) Mrs Turia has lost the plot in a big way
e) Mrs Turia is actively racist and less interested in biculturalism and her party's people than she pretends
f) Peta Sharples needs to come home

Comments

[angry-in-pink.livejournal.com]

A mixture of b,c and F maybe?

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I find it rather sad that she seems to be of the opinion that the only way a minority can be represented is with their own seats; and if she does feel that way, why isn't she campaigning for chinese seats, and gay seats, and homeless seats, and muslim seats, and so on and so on.

Shane Jones is also rather dumb, though, because the maori seats have bugger all to do with the Treaty.

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

I opt for a combination of b) and the resulting f).

Tariana, honey, while we appreciate the close genetic and cultural links between Pasifika and Maori, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. If I went to Germany and asked for the same sort of work visa rights as I would have in Britain, they would laugh in my face, a lot, because while German + British = European, German =? British. Similarly, Pasifika =? Maori. The Maori seats are based on...well, active prejudice and racism, mostly, but also on Maori status as tangata whenua, which Pacific Islanders absolutely do not have any more than Thai or Somalians or English do.

Trying to turn it into some sort of "brown" voting right comes dangerously close to apartheid, if it doesn't cross the line outright. It also demeans Pasifika status as a group/groups of their own, who presumably - who do already - elect their own leaders and representatives to Parliament. The needs and problems of Fijians, Tongans, Samoans, and others, while similar to Maori, are not always the same, and deserve different representation.

Then, of course, there's the thing by which anyone can vote on the Maori roll if they so choose. Most non-Maori don't, which demonstrates, to me, a distinct lack of necessity for this change.

As for her suggestion of them getting their own electoral seats...this 1) misses the point of the Maori seats entirely, 2) demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the amount of representation we have here (approx 1 electorate MP per 65,000 people v. the USA with 1 Congressman per 600,000 people), 3) again, if not actual apartheid, has a common defence policy and an open border agreement with it. I don't want to echo National, but, seriously, democracy is about equality, not this group and that group splitting up.

[disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com]

Can anyone vote on the Maori roll? Are you sure?

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

Well, as long as they're willing to tick the "I am Maori" box on their election forms. Since there aren't any whakapapa police to hunt down fake Maori offenders...yes.

I'll admit this is not _technically_ the same as being allowed, but it adds up to the same thing.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

If Russell Crowe can do it, anyone can

[nzlemming.livejournal.com]

All of the above except a)

Why this is a surprise to anyone, I don't know...

[domssecondbfast.livejournal.com]

B.

[rewihendrix.livejournal.com]

She's lost the plot. what do you mean Pita Sharples should come home? they should just get rid of Tariana.

[schmidtey.livejournal.com]

Pita Sharples is... brilliant.

I vote f)

[tisis.livejournal.com]

B. If being recognised in the perception of yourself and others as Pasifika means you can be classed together with Maori as being in the Maori electorates, then I claim that right as well. As I understand it - and please elucidate me if I'm incorrect - "Maori" was used to describe the people we today know as Maori because it meant "people"; but I, along with my family, community, etc., etc., am a person, and one of many people. Similarly, I as an individual am just as much tangata whenua as a Maori individual - we have different cultural backgrounds, but as it happens I live here, too, and I was born here, too. Of course there should be representative seats for Maori - but I shouldn't be excluded because of my ethnic dissimilarity, and Pasifika people included because of their affinity. In the end, if difference is difference, and basis for segregation and exclusion, then ALL difference is difference, right? And no, it's not exactly right.

[san-grail.livejournal.com]

'Maori' just meant 'ordinary'. It doesn't get used in that sense anymore, but that's what it meant. 'Tangata Maori' being 'ordinary people'.

Maori were defined by their tribe until they met Europeans, or Pakeha, and then defined themselves in terms of them - The 'keha' in 'Pakeha' meaning 'pale', and being related to the name for a fair skinned fairy people the Pakepakeha, like the Patupaiarehe (pakeha as a term isn't limited to people of pale skin though).

/End geeking

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

Well. B. Maori and Pacific islanders face similar social problems, and on the surface it looks like a good idea... but they're not the same! And Maori seats are part of indigenous rights - they're not merely a special treat for a disadvantaged minority.

She also mentioned the idea of Pasifika seats in parliament... But we can't just go around giving different ethnicities their own seats - partly it's classifying and separating people by race, and also, what happens to the minorities who are too small a part of the population to warrant proportional representation? Do we give them one seat each so they're unfairly over-represented or do we ignore them? And what happens to "invisible" minorities like recent European immigrants, who don't stand out as "different" because they're white? (Because pakeha New Zealanders are not an amorphous blob!)

I'm starting to sound like some kind of alarmist reactionary here, but... Maori and Pasifika alone having special representation would divide New Zealand into Polynesian and Not Polynesian, for no real reason except some ethnic groups in our country are closely related to our indigenous people, who have special seats in parliament as part of fulfilling our obligations to them as descendents of a people whose land our ancestors colonised... and extending any ethnically specific seats to more groups to make it "fairer" would just be unfeasable.

By all means let anyone who wishes to, vote on the Maori roll. But we don't need our voting rights divided into "brown people" and everybody else. Apartheid indeed!

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I'm a bit confused here. You say: we can't just go around giving different ethnicities their own seats and then Maori and Pasifika alone having special representation would divide New Zealand (which I'm presuming you see as a bad thing). But then you go on to say Maori have special seats in parliament as part of fulfilling our obligations to them as descendents of a people whose land our ancestors colonised. Are you saying that in general, seats for ethnic minorities are a bad idea, but that Maori are a special case because of their status as an indigenous people?

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

More or less. As I understand it there's a UN obligation to recognise colonised peoples?

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there is, although people forget the basic reason the Maori seats were put in place was to stop Maori, who outnumbered Pakeha at the time, from controlling a majority of Parliament; at least they didn't straight-out ban them from voting, but it wasn't meant as a favour. Then again, they also ensured representation for Maori through the dark days of the late nineteenth and early to mid twentieth centuries, so they've been a mixed blessing. I don't know if there's really a strong need for them anymore, but any attempt to get rid of them has to come from within the Maori community because they feel comfortable with it.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

I'm curious - when did the maori gain the option (as opposed to being forced to) register on the maori roll?

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

There is, but UN resolutions are not law unless they are integrated into the statues of the member country in question, and they are usually quite broad in their scope - there's nothing implicit in 'recognition' that stipulates that separate parliamentary seats must be provided. Furthermore, Maori are hardly the only colonised people in New Zealand - people from Tonga, Fiji and Samoa definitely fit that description, as do Indians, Chinese, LGBT, women and so on. But all that aside, maori seats well predate the UN resolution in question, or in fact the UN, or indeed -any- form of global government. So claiming that a UN mandate justifies the existence of the maori seats is, in my view, pretty unfounded. One might argue that it stems from a more general moral or common law requirement to give special privileges to indigenous peoples, but I'm against that. After all, in many parts of the world, such as Europe, the indigenous peoples outnumber the more recent arrivals -and- are already in positions of power, so a general commitment to indigenous rights would in many areas involve an entrenchment of existing elites at best, and an incitement to racism at worst.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I think you're playing kind of fast and loose with that. Although, yes, maori seats predate the resolution in question, that is not to say that the maori seats cannot be seen as being used to meet said resolution; furthermore, the intent of the resolution in question is that the colonised people in question is the colonised people of the actual country - so Indians don't count.

most Chinese, LGBT and women do not count, those are not colonised populations! they're disadvantaged or minority groups, but not colonised.

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

You are using a very narrow definition of what colonisation is - that is, a situation where Europeans arrive in a country and replace existing structures with structures that link that country to the European homeland. Colonisation is much more broad than that, particularly in the context in which the United Nations refers to it, and can encompass any group that is exploited. In Ralph Pettman's book he refers to women as the world's first, and last, colony, since they have all the traits you would associate with a colonised group - lack of autonomy, lack of self-representation, and yet forced to do a majority of the world's labour. The idea that colonisation can only occur across geographical frontiers, or that it's somehow tied to the 'who got here first' question, is to minimise the problem.

[san-grail.livejournal.com]

*waves*

Hey, this is me from from spn_downunder.
:)

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

*winks* Howdy. :)