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.
13 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.
Another instance of misreporting, this time from the most recent UK Telegraph – definitely not a paper known for left wing bias:
“…The proposed legislation is seen by many Maori and their supporters as undermining the rights of the country’s indigenous people, who make up around 20 per cent of its population of 5.3 million. The bill, they argue, threatens to promote racial discord and constitutional upheaval…”
“… David Seymour, the author of the bill and leader of the libertarian ACT Party, has long rallied against affirmative action policies designed to help Maori people, who remain far more likely to die early, live in poverty or wind up in prison.
His legislation aims to wind back these so-called “special rights”…”
The article has generated some angry rebuttals, but -alas- many readers will see only the alarming headlines & dramatic videos.
Lettuce join the dots - TVNZ, TV3, Australian Broadcasting Corp, Canadian Broadcasting Corp, BBC, then America - MSNBC, ABC , NBC & CNN & The Ladies Breakfast Show (ABC), from Los Angeles and not forgetting Aunt Flo's salad bowl in the kitchen- to have a news item, it must be obtained "from a sauce", with breathless expectation the script is written, the on camera journo then creates a voice to the script - and answering pre ordained questions from the News Desk [if the delivery is live from the scene], in breathless tones, maybe "interrogating a person on street"- and ad-nauseum repeating a story, with differing angle, interpretations, interviews plus and sadly we have many "who truly believe what they have just seen & heard", you only have to read posted comments following a specific report (YouTube is classic, so is this Blogsite).
NO wonder people turn off and turn to social media (sadly) for news.
One can see why YouTube has become popular to obtain the "what is really happening out there".
And these TV Business "wonder why their advertising $'s are going down the gurgler"- incurring deficit costs that lead to staff redundancies, further adding to the poor programs that are shown.
The hikoi sham featured on Wed's BBC news page, but the most telling part, for its critics especially, was the ten Most Read, and the shemozzle behaviour did not even get a mention. Besides themselves, who cares?
Katy Watson is the BBC correspondent - based in Sydney. Seems she flew in for the protest. Doesnt seem to understand the nuances of the debate. BBC dont seem to have anyone on the ground here - their go-to local journalist is RNZs Colin Peacock who presents his personal leftist anti-government view.
i would be curious to read a suggested entry for an English newsapper worded as Robert thinks appropriate. As for the second newspaper entry, if the writer commenting on lawlessness had drawn direct parallels with blacks in USA or Islamics in Europe the readong public woud have grasped the situation more quickly
Post a Comment