Claire Charters in the Post of 26 July
From Professor Claire Charters, in the Post of 26 July (Charters, 2025a) we read:
“Seymour's profound ignorance in matters of indigenous human rights and international protocol was on display in his interactions with Barume.” Of course, Dr. Albert Barume is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples who had written to the New Zealand Government on issues relating to Māori, including the Regulatory Standards Bill.
Profound ignorance is a very strong indictment. In fact, I thought the Deputy Prime Minister to be largely justified in responding in the way he did, but Professor Charters is welcome to her opinion and, indeed, it is one that others share with her. Does she have anything constructive to say about the current Deputy Prime Minister?
Indeed, we have remaining disparities in health and social wellbeing across communities but the causes of those disparities are complex and successive governments have attempted to address them over several decades. In fact, our Pacific people fare even worse than Māori in both health and socioeconomics. Does Professor Charters have a view on our Pacific people and their rights?
Professor Charters is the first-named author of He Puapua (Charters et al., 2019). Among the numerous claims made there, we see demands that one ancient form of Traditional Knowledge be valued and resourced equally to “Western science”. Here in New Zealand we desire a better quality of life for everyone, especially for disadvantaged communities. However, can Professor Charters explain the benefits to the people, the economy and the environment of New Zealand if funding to science were to be cut by half in order to resource Traditional Knowledges or research conducted exclusively by minorities? Surely we see here profound ignorance of the role of science in contributing to the generally high standard of living and quality of life evident in most nations of the world of today.
“In Seymour's aggressive response to the special rapporteur, one has a sense that “he doth protest too much“, and is nervous that the policies he is promoting are indeed contrary to the rights of indigenous peoples and human rights under international law.”
One can harbor or even invent any sense one chooses about what goes on in someone else’s mind, but how do policies that advocate equality for every citizen, irrespective of ancestry, country of origin, religion or socioeconomic status run contrary to the rights of indigenous peoples and human rights under international law? Claims of systemic bias and racism today against the first people to settle in New Zealand are advanced very frequently from our mainstream media, and probably to a very sizeable receptive audience. But how often do our media discuss other sides of the debate, such as disparities that affect our Pacific people, our immigrant Islamic people and other minority groups, or indeed the ongoing efforts that New Zealand has made to empower our minorities and lift their health and wellbeing and their socioeconomic status? Does Professor Charters have a view on white people who suffer financial hardship? Of course, whether or not the Deputy Prime Minister is nervous about policy is a matter of pure speculation.
“In sum, Seymour's response to the special rapporteur's letter exposes him as a victim (of the day?) of his own ignorance, arrogance and political miscalculation. It is also an indicator of his hypocrisy in his claims to uphold the human right to equality.”
I agree that “Victim of the Day” was not appropriate. On the other hand, if detractors deliberately obfuscate and misrepresent the intent of policy or proposed legislation, and cast unprovable and probably unfair aspersions and misrepresentations on the intent of the proposers, then such behaviours must prove very frustrating. Does Professor Charters have a view on the considerable invective that is directed towards the Deputy Prime Minister on a continuous basis?
Over several years I have followed with interest the Deputy Prime Minister’s statements on human rights and, while I do not agree with him or with the current Coalition Government on every matter of policy or legislation, I see no evidence that causes me to doubt his sincerity.
Claire Charters in Newsroom of 9 August
In Newsroom of 9 August Professor Charters tells us that the reasoning behind the Electoral Amendment Bill looks suspicious and has the whiff of a calculated move by National, Act and NZ First to weigh the next election in their favour . . . (Charters, 2025b). She writes:
“If that is the case, and you be the judge, then this could be a substantial breach of one of the most important of our civic rights and democratic process.”
Surely, our voting public must be enabled to base their judgements relating to social and political matters on something more substantial than someone’s whiffs. That the present Government would stack the odds in their favour is quite an accusation. It is perfectly possible that any Government plays such games, including our present Government. But perhaps our present Government truly believes that it has good reason to advance the Electoral Amendment Bill and has done so in good faith.
Apparently, the Electoral Commission suggests that special votes are more likely to come from areas with larger Māori, Asian and Pasifika communities, and that younger people are more likely to cast special votes. Thus, these communities could be more greatly affected by the proposed registration deadline.
I agree that this issue could be a real problem and that Professor Charters is right to point out the possibility. However, one respondent to Professor Charters’ opinion piece writes that the Electoral Amendment Bill simply changes the rules for electoral roll updates and reminds us that no-one is denied the right to vote. He says that if a person’s electoral roll data is out of date, then he or she must take action before the deadline for roll changes prior to the election. What has changed is that we need to do this earlier - the day before special or early voting starts. Further, this is for an election that is still more than a year away. The respondent asks: “How hard is that?”
Indeed, just how difficult is it for any person to update his or her roll data a year or more prior to an election? There is a view that if you cannot be bothered enrolling beforehand or if you decide to unroll on the day, then you do not deserve a vote. Does Professor Charters protest just a little too much? I am not qualified to judge existing or proposed legislation, but I fail to see how this bill could represent a substantial breach of one of the most important of our civic rights and democratic process.
Dame Anne Salmond on 14 June
In Newsroom of 14 June, Dame Anne Salmond refers to the Regulatory Standards Bill as a dangerous piece of legislation, inspired by libertarian ideas that seek to free the flow of capital from democratic constraints (Salmond, 2025a). She says that it expresses contempt for collective rights and responsibilities, public goals and values and liberal democracy. However, do we truly see contempt or does Dame Salmond engage here in a degree of theatre?
She claims that rather than upholding sound law-making processes in New Zealand, it radically undermines them. How so?
Further, she claims that this attempt to gain ideological oversight over the legislative and regulatory activities of all other ministers and government agencies constitutes a naked power grab. But does it?
In her opinion, such an arrangement (i.e. the Regulatory Standards Bill) is repugnant to democracy, and must not be allowed to proceed. She sees little reason to trust the integrity of Act’s professed intentions in relation to this Bill. She says that the Regulatory Standards Bill is a dangerous bill that attacks the fundamental rights of New Zealanders and attacks democratic principles, and therefore must not be allowed to pass.
Frankly, I do not know what to make of all of this and I am unsure of Dame Salmond’s command of New Zealand law, which may well far exceed my own. Possibly, both the Treaty Principles Bill and the Regulatory Standards Bill could have been drafted better and were not sold as well as they could have been – I really cannot judge. However, I do feel that we should listen when a genuine legal expert such as Sir Geoffrey Palmer warns of unintended consequences through inhibiting proper regulation that is required to protect the public interest (Palmer, 2025). I defer to Sir Geoffrey’s much greater knowledge of law than my own extremely modest understanding, but one person commented on Professor Palmer’s article as follows:
“Many submitters, if asked, would not have read details of the social situation in New Zealand prior to 1840. Nor would they have read at least two of the Treaty of Waitangi wordings. Possibly many had not read the Treaty Principles Bill. So we do not have agreed ‘Principles’ regarding the Treaty of Waitangi. The same or similar submitters against the Regulatory Standards Bill will not have read, or understood, this Bill either. Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Dame Mary Anne Salmond are known for expressing their viewpoints, generally against the current topic. Keeping the current Parliamentary processes will produce the same results, which is why an overhaul to reduce costs and delays is due. There is a need to allow good Bills to see the light of day. Bills being approved and enacted in a more timely manner. Whether this Bill passes or not there is a need to scrutinize old systems, review the outcomes of the updated method, with ability to immediately address unforeseen, unacceptable side effects.”
On reflection, and as an ordinary citizen untrained in law, I tend to agree with this person. I accept the view expressed by some that these two Bills could bring unintended consequences and that, following further evaluation and debate, ways may be found to improve both. However, in general terms I see both as genuine attempts to improve New Zealand society in future decades and thus I am supportive.
In particular, I support the Treaty Principles Bill because, while it requires further debate and may stand to be improved in relation to the rights of Hapū and Iwi Māori, it aims clearly at equality for all and to some extent guards against the kind of overreach that we have seen over the last few years, including demands for Traditional Knowledge to sit at the heart of all levels of education, demands for indigenization of our universities, demands for “decolonization” of science and other domains of public life, demands for biculturalism over multiculturalism within our institutions, demands for equal status and funding for Traditional Knowledge and modern world science, demands that a particular historic document should be central to the governance of our regulatory bodies, demands that one traditional world view should sit within New Zealand law, claims over large fractions of the conservation estate, claims for control over water, including the foreshore and seabed, demands for special rights in health and education, jobs advertised exclusively for people who claim one particular ancestry - and much more.
Dame Salmond and Professor Palmer have expressed their views quite legitimately, but how often does our media present alternative or dissenting views to theirs?
Dame Anne Salmond on 22 July
In Newsroom of 22 July, Dame Anne Salmond hits out yet again at the present Government (Salmond, 2025b). She reflects on her recent experience at being labelled ‘Victim of the Day’ and tells us effectively that such behaviours occur when minor politicians assume power beyond their capacity to wield it wisely. With public displays of bullying and abusive behaviour, she says, they authorise others to do the same.
I agree that “Victim of the Day” was unkind and unnecessary but is she fair in her attacks on the Regulatory Standards Bill and does she have anything to say about certain unpleasant behaviours and bullying that come so often from the current opposition? For that matter, does she have anything positive to say about our Deputy Prime Minister who seems to me to have to deal with disparaging commentary on an almost unceasing basis?
Dame Salmond says that at present many Kiwis feel that the occupants of the Beehive need reining in. This assertion may or may not be true, but it was very demonstrably true of large fractions of the nation’s voting public at the time of the last election. She says that law-making often serves the interests of particular elites rather than the public interest and that serious constitutional reform is needed, and she asserts that degrading of select committees, overreach by minor parties and debates over the Regulatory Standards Bill and the attempted Treaty Principles Bill make reform urgent and imperative.
Indeed sometimes law-making serves the interests of particular elites but I am not aware that this problem is serious in the context of this Bill, which seems to me to serve the interests of the nation as a whole, and sometimes serving the elites is necessary as a condition of realising broader public good.
I am unsure what is meant by degrading of select committees but Dame Salmond could usefully review the behaviour and, indeed, the missions of one or two minor parties currently in opposition. She could then judge for herself whether policies such as - creating an independent Justice Authority for one ethnic and cultural group only, overturning the Crown’s position that “everyone owns water” and instead adopting a position that acknowledges proprietary, customary and decision-making rights and interests regarding freshwater for one ethnic and cultural group only (Te Pati Māori, 2025) - are in the best interests of the future of our nation.
Verity Johnson in Stuff of 13 February
In Stuff of 13 February, Verity Johnson voices much negativity about our Deputy Prime Minister and says (Johnson, 2025a):
“There he is, barrelling up the steps to the Beehive in his Land Rover like he’s late for school pick up because pilates overran.”
I believe that Mr. Seymour has explained this particular stunt as having drawn attention to a charity and raise money for Heart Health. The Land Rover, believed to be the oldest in New Zealand and dating to 1948, was at Parliament as part of a fundraising effort for The Centre for Heart Research (1News, 2025). The idea was to raise $300,000 to fund research into a new heart valve for children with rheumatic fever. I invite Verity and indeed Sir Ian Taylor, who also voices very negative commentary on the Deputy Prime Minister (Taylor, 2025a and 2025b), to say something nice about Mr. Seymour’s “stunt” in a future blog.
“You can’t see a blob of partially rehydrated pasta these days without simultaneously being reminded both of Seymour - and the kind of slop you imagine they’d scrape off the galley floor of a Klingon gulag.”
Not particularly flattering, nor particularly clever nor constructive, but once again Verity is welcome to her opinion and, of course, it is always open season on our political leaders, especially on our Deputy Prime Minister. For them, it all goes with the territory. However, I have read quite a lot of Verity’s articles over many years and, though she appears to be motivated quite genuinely towards social justice and though some of her work may be intended as humorous, I remain to be convinced that she has added much that is positive in relation to political or social matters, nor to social cohesion, nor to how our society characterizes white males in particular. Unfortunately, her reviews of the Deputy Prime Minister come across to me as decidedly unpleasant and not greatly courageous, given that she is most certainly assured of support from her managers and from a left-leaning public, and is likely to experience little or no backlash.
On the contrary, if some readers, especially young people, are influenced by journalists like her, then I fear that the net result is a minor but nevertheless tangible escalation in bias, a small but perceptible degree of indoctrination, and consequential damage to trust and good will across communities. In short, while some may be intended as light-hearted, I do not believe that such journalism is entirely harmless, nor delivered exclusively with positive intent.
Verity Johnson in Stuff of 28 June
In Stuff of 28 June Verity tells us (Johnson, 2025b):
“David Seymour on the other hand, reacts with all the subtlety and sophistication of the year 7 dodgeball team. Right after they lose the finals to their arch school nemesis.”
I must admit that this is not how the current Deputy Prime Minister seems to me. His speeches and discussions with journalists appear measured, articulate and reasoned, irrespective of whether we agree with him or not.
“Building a brand off being a wise ass may have been David Seymour’s greatest strength so far, but it could also be his greatest weakness.”
Those are Verity’s opinions and she is welcome to them. Like many others, I happen to disagree. Does Verity express a view on the behavior in Parliament of various members of the opposition parties over the last few years? Does she have a view on the conviction during 2024 of a prominent Member of Parliament and subsequent dismissal in the High Court of her appeal for a discharge without conviction, beyond suggesting rebranding of that person’s political party (Johnson, 2024)?
Like many others, I feel genuinely sorry for that former Member of Parliament and try to understand the impacts on her of the stigma that surrounded her following her conviction. Like many others, I believe that she should be allowed to put her past behind her. However, the relative silence of journalists in expressing views on such matters, while lashing out against others, brings the integrity of our media into question.
Again, referring to the Deputy Prime Minister, Verity says:
“In fact, his whole schtick is acting like, as Winston would say, a bit of a dickhead. And no, as Winston would argue, I’m not using that as a profane insult.”
Not intended as a profane insult? Then why did Verity go into print using a word that if used on a female, a member of a minority group or against a member of the opposition, might indeed be considered profane?
“I’m using that as a technical term to describe someone deliberately provocative, intentionally inflammatory, and never misses an opportunity to start a fight or score a point.”
Such is Verity’s justification for using a derogatory term. What would Verity’s reaction look like if some public figure referred to her or to Dame Anne Salmond, for example, using such a word?
“He’s a smart ass, wise cracking, fight starting guy. He’s funny. But he’s also the sort of person who can drive even the legendary kindness of Jacinda Ardern into calling him an “arrogant prick.”
There is a view that a “smartass” tendency can seem out of place in Parliament but, like Dame Salmond, Verity is indeed an aggressive opponent of this present Government. In any case, I too think of Former Prime Minister Ardern as kind, within limits. However, many do not agree. In a sense countermanding the prevailing discharge of left-leaning journalism, Sir Ian Taylor expresses very negative views on her leadership but, whatever mistakes may or may not have been made, I think that I understand her intent to save life during the COVID epidemic as a priority above all else. Sir Ian tells us that as time passed, the reality began to fray around the edges, the PR slogans “be kind” and “we’re all in this together”, felt increasingly hollow as divisions deepened and the promises faded into spin (Taylor, 2025c).
Actually, I have various criticisms of the Labour Government under her leadership, especially in education, but I do not agree in any way with the kind of vilification of Jacinda Ardern as a human being that has become commonplace among certain quarters. It does seem that many, untrained in medicine or epidemiology but who criticize the actions taken by her Government and its medical advisers, have acquired great expertise after the event.
Nor do I find the torrent of negativity towards our current Deputy Prime Minister particularly pleasant nor, indeed, particularly fair. But Professor Charters, Dame Salmond, Sir Ian Taylor, Verity and others get away with invective because our mainstream media is itself fully immersed in their ideology.
Comment
My concern about journalism such as I have referred to here is not so much about the views expressed by people such as Professor Charters, Dame Salmond or Verity Johnson. I happen to disagree strongly with Professor Charters and Professor Salmond on many issues but agree with them on a few, especially in relation to the ongoing need to address disparities across communities.
In addition, I happen to disagree with Verity on many things but, again, agree on some, and I accept that she may reach out quite successfully to a readership much younger than myself. Apart from a few, her articles do not in general appeal to me, but perhaps this is mainly because I am an aging white male and indeed she may write intentionally for a different audience.
My true concern centers on a mainstream media that is greatly biased and that can influence for what I perceive as not always for the public good. Unfortunately, it is also illiterate in matters of science, pushes scientifically baseless ideas and refuses to publish the responses of professional scientists (e.g. Lillis, 2025a, b and c). Further, I consider that our media poses a genuine danger when in effect it endorses traditional or folk medicine as a possible substitute for modern global medicine; for example, Tyson (2023), where we are told that certain traditional medicine is very different from our notions of “Western medicine”, is a more interconnected approach, and that it has managed quite adequately over the centuries.
In addition, our media is unwilling to publish anything that goes against current ideological narratives, such as my own support for the inclusion of one or more works of Shakespeare in our English curriculum (Lillis, 2025d). The problem as I see it is that our media presents overwhelmingly a left-leaning and currently anti-Government perspective that may well influence its readers in ways that are not necessarily helpful for the future of our country or relationships between its diverse communities, when in reality valorizing one or other ideology should never be its core function within our society. Our tax dollars go partly to fund our media and, as such, we have a right to expect, if not always exactly politically neutral, then nevertheless reasonably balanced, media that gives opportunity for diverse and even dissenting opinions on social and political matters. However, this is not what we are getting and unfortunately we are being let down very badly.
We should encourage our media to take greater responsibility for journalism that is politically and ideologically balanced and fair and, where appropriate, involves genuine scientific expertise and verified science. We should expect our media to display both the integrity and breadth of mind to publish not only material that embraces social justice and valorizes traditional or minority world views, but also countermanding material from subject matter experts that challenges or corrects falsehoods. To give any less is to defraud the public of this country.
Dr David Lillis trained in physics and mathematics at Victoria University and Curtin University in Perth, working as a teacher, researcher, statistician and lecturer for most of his career. He has published many articles and scientific papers, as well as a book on graphing and statistics.
References
Charters, et al. (2019). He Puapua: Report of the working group on a plan to realise the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples in Aotearoa New Zealand. https://iwichairs.maori.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/He-Puapua-for-OIA-release.pdf
Charters, Claire (2025a). The Post. 26 July 2025. David Seymour’s UN letter: arrogance, ignorance and hypocrisy
https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/360770476/david-seymours-un-letter-arrogance-ignorance-and-hypocrisy
Charters, Claire (2025b). Why planned voting changes could be a civic rights breach. Newsroom, 9 August 2025.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/08/09/why-planned-voting-changes-could-be-a-civic-rights-breach/
Johnson, Verity (2024). Stuff, 31 October 2024. The Greens shouldn’t waste this crisis
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360468823/verity-johnson-greens-shouldnt-waste-crisis
Johnson, Verity (2025a). Stuff, 13 February. Chill, David Seymour isn’t NZ’s Trump
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360578083/verity-johnson-chill-david-seymour-isnt-nzs-trump
Johnson, Verity (2025b). Stuff, 28 June. David Seymour’s greatest strength may also be his greatest weakness
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360738217/verity-johnson-david-seymours-greatest-strength-may-also-be-his-greatest-weakness
Lillis, David (2024) Science and the New Zealand Media
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/09/david-lillis-science-and-new-zealand.html
Lillis, David (2025a) Farming by the Stars?
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2025/06/dr-david-lillis-farming-by-stars.html
Lillis, David (2025b) Intertwining Knowledge Systems?
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2025/07/david-lillis-intertwining-knowledge.html
Lillis, David (2025c) Bringing Back the Moa?
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2025/07/david-lillis-bringing-back-moa.html
Lillis, David (2025d) Unpublished Letter to the Listener
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2025/07/david-lillis-unpublished-letter-to.html
Palmer, Geoffrey (2025). Newsroom 2 July 2025. Passing Regulatory Standards Bill will exact high political price
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/07/02/geoffrey-palmer-passing-regulatory-standards-bill-will-exact-high-political-price/
Salmond, Anne (2025a). What’s wrong with the Regulatory Standards Bill
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/06/14/anne-salmond-whats-wrong-with-the-regulatory-standards-bill/
Salmond, Anne (2025b). New Zealanders deserve better
Reflections on the politics of personal attack, a sign of hope and some ways forward. Newsroom, 22 July 2025.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/07/22/anne-salmond-new-zealanders-deserve-better/?utm_source=Newsroom&utm_campaign=37a0c7ca82-Daily_Briefing+22.07.2025&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_71de5c4b35-37a0c7ca82-576237804&mc_cid=37a0c7ca82&mc_eid=1dee2e7c80
Taylor, Ian (2025a).David Seymour, you are my Person of the Year for 2024
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360568115/sir-ian-taylor-david-seymour-you-are-my-person-year-2024
Taylor, Ian (2025b). Seymour’s rise to the second seat with power far beyond his mandate
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360716927/ian-taylor-seymours-rise-second-seat-power-far-beyond-his-mandate
Taylor, Ian (2025c). Dear Jacinda, this is the most difficult letter I have written to you. Stuff, 3 July, 2025.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360743654/ian-taylor-dear-jacinda-most-difficult-letter-i-have-written-you
Te Pati Māori (2025). Policy
https://www.maoriparty.org.nz/policy
Tyson, Jessica (2023). Therapeutic Products Bill: ‘Crown has no place in regulating rongoā’ says expert. New Zealand Herald. 9 May 2023.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/therapeutic-products-bill-crown-has-no-place-in-regulating-rongoa-says-expert/TLHZLLVL2ZBXHCCGOCTNW5MOFU/
1News (2025). ACT leader David Seymour has been stopped by security after he tried to drive a near 80-year-old Land Rover up Parliament's steps.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/02/10/seymours-attempt-to-drive-land-rover-up-parliaments-steps-halted/
9 comments:
It shouldn't come down to having to agree or disagree with journalists. They should report the news, that is, the facts. Either the fact reported are true or they're not. Opinions should be in the letters to the editor, or an opinion pieces by people with expertise in the actual subject being discussed and when there are different legitimate points of view, each should be given. Unfortunately, many journalists think that they are automatically experts in all subjects just because they are journalists. Their inability to distinguish fact from opinion suggests otherwise.
Samuel Clemens 1835 - 1910 aka Mark Twain once stated:
“If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.”
Nothing much has changed for the better but certainly for the worse, hence the trust in the MSM in New Zealand is now so low that if it was a dog it would be put down to save it from its misery.
RNZ persists in reading out listener comments, real or contrived. (thereby lowering the once proud status to that of a talk back station) To take the topical example of the removal of maori words from introductory English reader books, long explanations about multi languages in Europe and other apologies are read out. But the token balancing observations inserted are kept to a basic minimum. It is not explained that English words with sounds which do not fit the basic phonics are also omitted initially. .Other significant explanations also unheard.
We know the media is biased and unbalanced. Your lengthy article is commendable but will change nothing. We need academics to more than just write. I wish a whole bunch of lawyers, educators, doctors et al would get organized with some proper opposition to all the media bias and political uniparty we-know-best-and-we're -not-listening. You guys have the education and the contacts. We small folk will do what we can to support you.
MC
To be fair to Verity, on 11 August in Stuff she published an article that makes some valid points. Indeed, there seems to have been some nasty reaction to the appointment of Nikhil Ravishankar as the new CEO of Air NZ - because of his ethnicity. It is hard to know how many New Zealanders engage in that kind of racism. Let's hope they are few.
She says that New Zealand is both racist and it’s not. She says it’s deeply accepting and fiercely xenophobic, both good and bad simultaneously. Maybe. It's hard to judge these things.
She says that "ever since ACT tried to shove through the Treaty Principles Bill, it galvanised us into an eloquence we never normally can be bothered with. It feels like we’ve never actually been as articulate on race as we are right now."
New Zealand has become fixated on race and it is nearly impossible to get away from discussions of racism in our media. It will remain a problem if the media and certain political parties keep raising it as a major issue in New Zealand. I am not clear that it is helpful or indeed fair and just how serious is racism today?
Indeed, racists must be called out, even those of colour who lash out against others who are different from them. Indeed, Muslim and Asian friends of mine have told me about Maori who are unkind to them. Racism and prejudice come in many forms – not only from white people. But Verity and others are on safe ground in hitting out against Pakeha who engage in this behaviour. Much harder is to stand against Treaty over-reach because those who do stand-up are open to being labelled.
I do not agree with Verity’s assessment of the Treaty Principles Bill and I wonder how many Hikoi demonstrators had thought deeply about that Bill and considered whether it really disadvantages anyone. As far as I can tell it indeed disadvantages no-one. But the Hikoi epitomised a high degree of emotion about only one ethnic and cultural group only, when in reality other groups suffer equal or even worse disadvantage in health and socioeconomics; e.g. Pacific people.
I support some Diversity, Equity and Inclusion but Verity seems unaware of the many initiatives that New Zealand has taken to empower one minority ethnic group, or how it must feel for a highly qualified applicant for a job in our public service or a university but who loses out to someone much less qualified and experienced, simply because he or she is not of the correct ancestry.
Here in New Zealand we have seen a very strange reversion to Traditional Knowledge at the partial expense of science, and one brand of Traditional Knowledge seems very pervasive - certainly everywhere in education. Further, we see demands for equal status and funding for Traditional Knowledge and science. How did this happen and are such developments good for our country?
Yes, we have some racists and prejudiced people here on all sides of the racial and political spectrum, but we also have massive overreach relating to the Treaty and that seems to pervade almost every aspect of public life. This overreach is very unfair to the 25% of New Zealanders who are non-Maori and non-European. In fact it is unfair on everyone.
David Lillis
For a start, the likes of Salmon, Parmer, Johnson and it would seem the entire MSM are deeply ensconced in the ideologies of Marxism, this belief is incompatible with Democracy and libertarianism.
The more they Hate on David Seymour the more decent New Zealanders can be assured he's our only hope at next year's election.
All the MPs in the other parties of the coalition, are as described by Chloe, Spineless, including Winston Peters.
How is it possible that anyone could disagree with the simplicity and the sentiment of the Treaty Principles Bill.
This is but a drop in the bucket of the bias seen in nz’s msm.
Myself and many others frequently look for other sources for our news these days.
To anyone reading this look for
The platform
Duncan garner
Breaking views
Nz initiative
Point of order/ the good oil
Basset brash and hide
Daily telegraph nz
Daily sceptic (uk) because the bbc promotes absolute bollocks these days too.
And from there go straight to the source - you can watch what David Seymour really says to journos on YouTube, trump is genuinely good at getting a point across,
"Claims of systemic bias and racism today against the first people to settle in New Zealand are advanced very frequently from our mainstream media" and yet I have never actually read a real proof (actual real world example) of these statements. There will always be thin-skinned, easily offended, perpetual victims, low self esteem, people who take the slightest look askance or word (like not my "preferred" pronoun) as a deep offense and objectify their personal subjective experience as evidence of 'systematic" abuse. Yes, there certainly are real world examples of racism; I've been called a "dirty Jew" and accused of killing Jesus, told to go home to the USA when I publicly protested about loud car exhausts and boy racers. Hey, I just get on with my life.
And the prize for the ethnicity most guilty of public outbursts of racist intolerance towards recent immigrants [Indians, Asians etc.] goes to...Maori!
Post a Comment