from here
Really? How so?
A bit of background here. The Waitangi tribunal, set up to deal with past injustices to Maori from colonisation by monetary compensation and where possible return of land and resources, ruled that Maori might have the right to legally challenge for ownership of the seabed and forshore. In other words, beaches, riverbanks and fisheries, all of which are currently held by the Crown i.e. the Government, and are held in trust for all New Zealanders might be passed into private ownership, decided by race, not citizenship. Not wishing these resources to pass into private ownership, the Crown legislated to preserve the current public ownership.
Apparently passing public property into private ownership based on race isn't, in this case, 'playing the race card' or pandering to special interests.
And the problem with that is?
"Unfortunately, as we know, it doesn't work out that way because if there are disparities in health services and housing and employment and income and access to education, it's not because of ethnicity but because certain groups - indigenous peoples or racial or cultural minorities - have had a long history of having been the victims of discrimination or colonisation or oppression or apartheid or exploitation or segregation or whatever.
So 'indigenous peoples or racial or cultural minorities' aren't an ethnic group and we'll counter problems from other countries such as apartheid by introducing apartheid here.
Funny, I thought the last twenty years of compensation and redress in the billions of dollars and resources, targeted health projects and work employment schemes and specialist kohanga reo schools and education grants and guaranteed Maori seats in Parliament and a political party who sole objective is to promote Maori over every other ethnic group and (et cetera et cetera) were exactly that. But no. We can't just compensate, we must set up a system of laws that place a group of people in a position of privilege for perpetuity based purely on their race.
Again, I thought the last twenty years worth of policies were taking that into account. Silly me.
Well thank f*ck for that. Wouldn't want my country plunged into civil war because of some d*ckhead from the UN.
Which, without the slightest worry of sounding arrogant, New Zealand currently sets those international standards by a country mile.
Methinks we as New Zealanders are at the core of human rights issues, not this ****.
Rant over.
One law for all races' risky says expert
21.11.05
By Ruth Berry
The "one law for all" philosophy is a recipe for making race relations in New Zealand worse, says a United Nations human rights expert sent here to investigate.
21.11.05
By Ruth Berry
The "one law for all" philosophy is a recipe for making race relations in New Zealand worse, says a United Nations human rights expert sent here to investigate.
Professor Rudolfo Stavenhagen is investigating the Foreshore and Seabed Act for the UN Human Rights Commission after the UN's Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ruled the act discriminatory.
Professor Stavenhagen said ethnic and cultural diversity was a fact of life that "should not, that cannot be ignored" when it came to policy.
"When politicians play the race card it's not always for the best of objectives. It's a vote-getting ploy or it may hide special interests and so forth.
"When politicians play the race card it's not always for the best of objectives. It's a vote-getting ploy or it may hide special interests and so forth.
"There is a general debate, even in the human rights community and I've seen it in many countries, where ... even human rights defenders, say 'Well, let's not make a "difference" any more. So much harm has been done because of race-related issues.
"Let's simply say we're all citizens of this country and some are perhaps underprivileged or disadvantaged and let's have policies addressed to the poor or the needy or the homeless and so forth, regardless of what race or what ethnicity or what culture they come from'.
"Let's simply say we're all citizens of this country and some are perhaps underprivileged or disadvantaged and let's have policies addressed to the poor or the needy or the homeless and so forth, regardless of what race or what ethnicity or what culture they come from'.
"Unfortunately, as we know, it doesn't work out that way because if there are disparities in health services and housing and employment and income and access to education, it's not because of ethnicity but because certain groups - indigenous peoples or racial or cultural minorities - have had a long history of having been the victims of discrimination or colonisation or oppression or apartheid or exploitation or segregation or whatever.
"And then saying 'Well, this is all over now so let's forget about the difference' is not really politically feasible and it's sociologically not correct because people demand rights quae [as] peoples particularly when they have been oppressed and excluded as peoples from mainstream society or from political participation."
The "one law for all" argument assumed the playing field was level, but "not everybody has the same opportunities at birth ... So if states do not take that into account when they formulate their policies I think things may actually tend to become worse, rather than better."
Professor Stavenhagen said he hoped the findings he made would carry weight, but said the UN only had the power to recommend, not enforce.
Each country had to resolve in its own way the human rights issues confronting it, but there were nevertheless international standards.
Asked if he was concerned about Prime Minister Helen Clark's dismissal of the committee as one which sat on "outer UN system", he said it was one of several major UN committees "right at the centre, at the core of human rights issues".
Rant over.
Comment