You'd think the state-owned broadcaster in Britain, the BBC, could do a little bit of correct reporting on NZ. Instead, its front page news on the Wellington protests summarize what's happening as follows: "The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi is seen as fundamental to the country’s race relations. But .. there’s a concern that the rights won by the Māori community are being eroded. The bill that has been introduced by the Act political party argues that NZ should legally define the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi".
Bollocks. The entire point of the protests is that the principles of the Treaty have already been written and "legally defined" .. by our judiciary. Our Kings Counsels assert not only do the principles already exist in law, but they form part of NZ's Constitution, to such an extent that even Parliament has no rights to change them. ACT's proposed legislation is thereby contrary to "the rule of law" - an illegal attempt to rewrite the Constitution. Their argument is that the "government of the day" has no business sticking its nose into the matter. The BBC couldn't have got it more wrong. Maybe it should try accurately reporting what's going on in NZ - how these protests are about where sovereignty lies, the power of the judiciary vs Parliament, and our Constitution, instead of giving the world a wrong impression.
Sources:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdd0qr9mv9mo
Professor Robert MacCulloch holds the Matthew S. Abel Chair of Macroeconomics at Auckland University. He has previously worked at the Reserve Bank, Oxford University, and the London School of Economics. He runs the blog Down to Earth Kiwi from where this article was sourced.
Sources:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdd0qr9mv9mo
Professor Robert MacCulloch holds the Matthew S. Abel Chair of Macroeconomics at Auckland University. He has previously worked at the Reserve Bank, Oxford University, and the London School of Economics. He runs the blog Down to Earth Kiwi from where this article was sourced.
8 comments:
Global busybodies - again.
Show me where the New Zealand constitution is?
We don't have one. We have vaguely defined principle that have had no consultation with the overwhelming majority of people they affect.
So, in essence, our judiciary are loudly and proudly declaring to all New Zealanders that they have written, legally defined and introduced into law ‘apartheid principles’, and what’s more, ‘apartheid principles’ forms part of New Zealand’s Constitution?
So, what happens when it is learned and becomes widely known that the 1975 TOW Act was enacted using a fraudulent 'treaty' document?
Fraud” as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud and deception are synonymous.
I suspect the BBC summary reasonably reflects how 99% of NZers see matters. Robert's interpretation means that any pro maori judge who declares in a pro maori way sets in stone his/her view as if it were the Constitution. To establish which "principles" apply requires an exhaustive study of case law; an absurd situation which the origilal signatories never envisaged and which Seymour's Bill would largely resolve.
And who wrote this BBC article ?
An impartial Brit here on the ground ?
Bollocks, it would have been a NZ left wing freelance journo who has no problem with spreading lies to an international audience.
In the U.K. the BBC is well known for it's left wing bias, e.g. the pro-govt. stance of the inheritance tax. I have made a complaint to the BBC about it's reporting on David Seymour's bill, and this isn't the first such complaint I have made.
It is not like BBC is particularly careful about reporting correct and complete stories, just you see it better when you are on the receiving end😊
Just like SBS in Australia.
Post a Comment