Tuesday, August 31, 2004

I don't like the Green's 

The tree hugging I can take, the little patches on the elbows - odd, but whatever you're into. But this sort of imperious dismissal of a study into the potential viability of nuclear power is just irritating. A Green Party press release yesterday:
Environment Canterbury (ECan) regional councillors voted last night to consider nuclear power as part of planned debates and workshops on energy options for the region.

“Nuclear power is an absolute no-brainer for Canterbury and New Zealand,” said Mr Donald.

“Even the prospect of a nuclear power plant will immediately undermine our clean green image, to the detriment of tourism industry and primary produce exports.

“It is particularly offensive for Labour Party member Dr Ian Robertson, the mover of the motion, to suggest that the Chernobyl disaster did not kill ‘a great number’ of people. Reputable independent studies show that eight thousand clean-up workers died within five years, that there has since been a 12-fold increase in thyroid cancer among Belorussian women and a marked increase in leukaemia across Europe among children who were in the womb at the time. In terms of casualties, Chernobyl was a bigger tragedy than September 11.

“I find it disturbing that otherwise intelligent councillors have voted to investigate nuclear power. It is particularly surprising that two Labour Party councillors who are seeking re-election, Richard Budd and Sir Kerry Burke, have supported this motion that contradicts their ‘2021’ coalition’s vision statement. Helen Clark will not be amused.
No Don, what would be disturbing is if an "otherwise intelligent concillor" was to do anything but consider every possiblity, rather than pander to the antiquated preaching of the minority.

Thursday, August 26, 2004

Since sensationalism is the order of the day... 

Further to my previous post, this from the "TERRORISM SUPPRESSION ACT 2002 PART 1 - PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS 5. Terrorist act defined" and skipping to section 2 (note - this Act applies to residents of, and actions within New Zealand).

(2)An act falls within this subsection if it is intended to cause, in any 1 or more countries, 1 or more of the outcomes specified in subsection (3), and is carried out for the purpose of advancing an ideological, political, or religious cause, and with the following intention:

(a)to induce terror in a civilian population; or

(b)to unduly compel or to force a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.
I know that relating this piece of legislation to Mutu's comments could be considered 'reaching' - but threatening to bring home Palestine to stop a piece of legislation did make Part B ring a bell.

Time for another "Bring it on" speech to settle things down perhaps? 

It is one thing for a rogue public servant to cry "Civil War" - but for a well known academic and tribal leader to do so is quite extraordinary. Professor Margaret Mutu has come out with this:
"The warning by a senior civil servant of the inevitability of civil war if this bill is enacted is not hyperbole," she said in a prepared statement. [Supporting Piripi's earlier threats].

When National MP Dr Wayne Mapp asked her if she seriously believed civil war was inevitable in Ngati Kahu's district if the bill was passed, she said: "I think that is clearly stated in this paper, which is authorised by Ngati Kahu."

Dr Mapp then asked what she meant by civil war. She said: "The sorts of things that I thought everybody knew about, that happen in Palestine and Israel.
Again, for the second time in a month, My Right found himself biting his tongue, hard. I have long suspected that this woman has a rather casual relationship with reality. But really, is it open season for 'declarations of war' all of a sudden? This woman is teaching the next generation, helpful...

When talking to My Right senior (Always Right), the conversation lead to the ultimate question - do these people irresponsibly 'declaring war' have armies? Did this 'army' recently march on Parliament perhaps?

What would happen if Helen was to turn around and say, "Civil War you say? What an unfortunate state of affairs - but it is your call. See you in 20 minutes."

My Right genuinely hopes Civil War never comes to pass - but if it does, will open the book with 'non-Maori' at 1000 to 1. I suspect Mutu knows this and that a conventional civil war is not an option, so she deliberately raises the prospect of a Palestinian style civil war. In short, terrorist attacks from within, terrifying.

My Right believes the reaction to the first 'civil incident' by the New Zealand majority (Maori and non) would be incredibly swift and would cut down any threat in short order. It would also set us back as a nation by more than time can measure.

The deliberate choice of words and introduction of the terrorist element is extremely deliberate and disturbing. Mutu has taken the rhetoric to another level, it can't go much further.

Wednesday, August 25, 2004

My Right - not right 

Been hit by the flu - in fact - I feel like I have a bastard behind the eyes, so will probably be no posting until Monday.

Monday, August 23, 2004

From those who were there... 

The Brian Tamaki I'm black and I'm proud show rolled into Wellington today. I have posted earlier (two or three posts down - to modest to link to my own posts ;-) my thoughts on this fiasco. Jordan from Just Left was there and has written about the whole bizarre experience - I won't quote parts of his post - read the whole thing here. Nice narrative and shows how sadly, but inevitably, the day transcended "The Civil Unions" debate and became deeply devisive in itself.

DPF was there, camera in hand as ever. A few shots of the day are here as well. DPF to notes how the leaders in black trench coats would have been comical if it wasn't so sad.

Thanks to both of them - I'll post more once I have had a look at the news (and had a quick read of "The Social Report" - which weighs in at a lazy 180 pages for any insomniacs out there).

This pisses me off 

From today's Dom:
MacMillan was sentenced to 14 years in prison after 17-year-old Jayne Maree McLellan's body was found face down in a stream in the Dunedin suburb of Abbotsford in November 1988.

She had extensive knife cuts to her face, neck and hands, her nipple was nearly bitten off, her lower face was shattered and her skull had multiple fractures from being hit with a concrete post. A river stone had been shoved down her throat to stop her screaming.

A blood-covered MacMillan, 38, was found hiding in nearby bushes. He was later sentenced to 14 years in prison, and was eligible for parole after 10 years.
Graphic, horrific, disturbing. It is certainly all of the above. Now here is the first paragraph from the same article:
A man who raped and killed a Dunedin teenager 15 years ago has won $1200 damages for being refused a copy of a letter that claimed he had lured a young girl into a world of perverted sex and bestiality while he was on parole.
Less graphic - yup, but equally horrific and disturbing. The Tribunal found that there would have been "some" injury to this monster "...in the form of anxiety or distress at the thought that those who are in a position to influence or decide his future, or his conditions, were aware of information that he was not able to respond to." Not even that justification holds in that his lawyers were given access to the letter in question.

Full article from Stuff: Killer gets $1200 for hurt feelings
Don't go there if you have high blood pressure. I wish this was a joke - but you couldn't make this up.

Sunday, August 22, 2004

What will you be praying for on Monday?? 

It looks like there will a wide range of different groups marching on Parliaments grounds to either support, or object to, the "Enough is Enough" message being thrown out by way of kapa haka by the Destiny Church. So - what will the protagonists be praying for?

Destiny will be there praying that every other New Zealander would get wise and subscribe to their world view. This from the Destiny website;

“God is saying it is time to be a people of the Kingdom.”

At Destiny we have gone beyond church in the traditional sense – we are now churches who are powerfully influencing other churches and our communities for good.

Destiny is taking the church into the Kingdom mandate.

That could be seen as one way saying that 'we are a self serving political movement drumming up support and publicity for next years election using the fear of God', nice.

The Libertarianz will be there praying that everyone else would just leave them be and let them get about there porn, seems fair. This from one of their press releases;
He concludes with some advice for the busybody zealots: "Leave peaceful adults alone. If they offend thee, then just go elsewhere!"
So they will be there taking the trouble to deliver a slighty oxymoronic "come here, come here - go away" sort of a message.

Representatives of the Gay community will also be there to protest about the Destiny 'church' blaming them for a decline in community standards and for destroying the family (not even the tight leather strides will win you in friends from this crowd Pastor Brian - they just do not like you). From the GayNZ website;
Anti-and Pro-Civil Unions marches on Parliament
This Monday GayNZ.com will bring you live reports throughout the day. Stay in touch with the most disturbing anti-gay protest for decades, and the gay community's response!
As for My Right, I will be in Auckland praying for strong winds and rain in Wellington to put as many people off possible attending this sorry Destiny publicity stunt.

Saturday, August 21, 2004

Lost in the hype 

Alison Annan is popular with many of her students, super. They are all qualified, the ones that still can't spell think she is grate, and the ones that still can't count give her three thumbs up.

My Right actually likes her stance on school discipline and wonders how there could possibly be any controversy over suspending dope smoking students? She is an old fashioned disciplinarian who set high standards. But that is to overlook other disturbing facts.

To call her a megalomaniac may be to strong a charge - but the pattern of behaviour that led to her downfall does point to this. She was so desperate for success (personal) that she manufactured qualifications for many students - damaging the schools reputation. (The NCEA may have been key to allowing this to happen - but there was no shortage of cynical manipulation.) But there is one thing that stands out to My Right that was initially raised by the TV 3 investigation into Cambridge High. This tucked away in the middle of a lengthy Herald article and grossly under reported;
Staff who disagreed with Annan's educational or disciplinary policies complained that they were bullied or shifted to different positions. An auditor-general's report slammed as imprudent the purchase of life memberships of the Air New Zealand Koru Club for Annan and her husband. A $16,705 payment over three years for Annan's clothing and personal grooming was judged "inappropriate".

Then there was the fact that Annan and her husband, Ron, were major shareholders in Cambridge International College, a private institution offering a one-year programme to foreign, fee-paying students.

A conflict of interest, cried critics. Ron Annan was the director of Cambridge High's international students' programme and Alison regularly made trips overseas to scout for potential students for Cambridge.
There was more including overseas trips paid for out of the School coffers with dubious links to core school business - but forget that - $16,000 on kit and make up alone should have had her out the door back then.

My Right is staggered that people seem to be over looking this. The woman "inappropriately" missapropriated funds, caused great embarrassment to the school and the Ministry. The most embarrassing thing for Cambridge as a community now should be the level of support she is getting.

UPDATE - It appears that a little bit of malfeasance (not to mention a good dose of self righteousness) runs in the family - from today's SST - "Annan's sister also faced school audit". Unbelievable! Enough said.

Thursday, August 19, 2004

So the man doesn't lie - so what? 

There is a bit of a beat up on Stuff about Dr Don "bad mouthing" New Zealand to an Australian business audience. Clark has come out and said that this is absurd and that New Zealand "is clearly on a roll" - showing her incredible ability to ignore the issue at hand.
When it was put to him that it might put potential investors off New Zealand, Dr Brash said he was just presenting a factual argument. "This government is damaging our prospects and it's important everybody knows that."

Asked if he thought it likely that his remarks would make someone who was thinking of expanding into New Zealand think again, Dr Brash responded: "I don't know."

"I think they would at least ask some questions of their advisers (about employment law and other problems). It's better to find out now than find out after they've made a commitment of money because that will make them very bitter and disillusioned."
What Brash is saying is that the operating environment for business in Australia is better than in New Zealand. My Right is keen to hear from anyone that would argue against that.

Note the middle paragraph dig as well. A lot of people are attempting to create an image of Brash as poorly briefed and 'iffy' when asked direct questions. He may not be as clear as he should be on policy details on many occasions, granted. But here he is asked to speculate as to how someone might possibly feel about his comments. He didn't know, he said so, big deal (I would like to see the full interview text for what came before and after as well).

Brash is by no means perfect - but I have absolutely no issue with him telling an Australian audience what most of them are already fully aware of. Thoughts people??

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

Call me a poof and I kill ya 

A good Op Ed in todays Herald by Alison Laurie prompted this - "'Homosexual panic' defence must go."

I'll kill ya - but it won't be murder. Such was the case in the David McNee trial where Phillip Edwards used, successfully, the notion of "homosexual panic" to reduce his conviction from murder to manslaughter. He was guilty of manslaughter but not murder because there was no murderous intent, Edwards' lawyer Roy Wade told the court.

This is seriously wrong - and the fact that the Judge told the Jury to consider a "provacation defence" is also disturbing. A known criminal (street wise one would imagine) is picked up for a "look but don't touch" sex session. Two men go back to the house, the 'client' breaks his side of the bargain and goes to touch - this is not part of the deal.

The key here is the response.

Rather than Phillip Edwards demanding the cash at the moment things went too far (and some extra coin on top for the broken promise) and simply walking out (I wouldn't mind if he helped himself to a couple of bottles of booze for the inconvenience as well) - he proceeds to beat a man to death. With his hands.

How the hell can a lawyer claim there was no "murderous intent"? Christ knows what this punk is capable of if this was just a tickle up (excuse the context). If this sort of defence can fly we will be in real trouble. It appears that we are.

Tuesday, August 17, 2004

Maori led by losers? 

Alan Duff used his platform at the Act Welfare Symposium to launch a stinging attack on Maori Leadership. There's nothing like gross generalisations and sweeping accusations to dent your own credibility - but some of his points did need making. From Stuff:
Organised by ACT deputy leader Muriel Newman, the conference was about getting people off welfare into work, and Duff's brief was to speak on how welfare was destroying Maori.

But in an off-the-cuff speech that matched his strongest past outbursts against Maori leadership, Duff said the issue was not so much welfare reform as reform of Maori losers.

"You don't know how the blame is being shifted on to you," he said to the 100-strong audience. "By shifting the blame on to white people and on to anyone but themselves, their problems continue to worsen.

"Everyone's too afraid to say it's the Maoris that are the problem."

Duff said Maori radio stations carried "an endless parade of losers" blaming Pakeha for their problems.
I think there is something in what Duff is saying, but to call Maori leadership in general "losers" is going a bit far. The point that did resonate with My Right is how the media and Moari constantly talk down Maori, constantly emphasis negative statistics and generally do their best to tell Maori that they are all victims.

I am not saying that this is completely self fulfilling prophecy - but it can't help. Many of the most successful Maori achieve their success via mainstream institutions and without targeted assistance. Many Maori organisations are working marvelously to support their own communities (the new facility at what was Athletic Park being case in point).

There is no doubt that there are issues when measuring Maori 'problems' against largely European standards and benchmarks - but My Right just wishes that these numbers were not consistently used to explain and excuse future failings.

We know the numbers, we know the issues, Mr Duff, some solutions now please.

Monday, August 16, 2004

A bit hard to qoute at this stage - but here they are 

The speeches from the Act Welfare Symposium are all online here. Hawk over at Darkness mentioned that most spoke without notes so transcripts may be a while coming - and with the man monitoring web traffic - it may take a while to listen to all of them...

Saturday, August 14, 2004

The Act Symposium on Welfare Reform is underway 

This Symposium should throw up some interesting ideas on Welfare Reform, My Right hopes it is not simply dismissed as a 'kick a beneficiary while they are down' session by those on the left. Amongst the speakers are the Hon Michael Bassett and the Hon Roger Douglas - I will post on their speeches when they are available.

Muriel Newman kicked of today by opening the Symposium with a speech that detailed the boom of the welfare state - far beyond what Kirk Labour Government had in mind when it implemented the recommendations of the 1972 Royal Commission on Social Security. The full speech is here and highlights some telling statistics:
The result was a ten-fold increase in welfare dependency in just 30 years – from fewer than 35,000 beneficiaries right up until the early 1970s, to over 350,000 today.

In 1973, 31 years ago, we had 12,000 sole parents. Today we have 112,000.

In 1983, 21 years ago, we had 8,000 on Sickness Benefits. Today we have 43,000 – over five times as many.

In 1983, 21 years ago, we had 18,000 Invalid beneficiaries. Today we have 72,000, four times as many.

If you believe Labour, you would think that unemployment is no longer a problem. Yet, in 1973 – 31 years ago – there were fewer than 2,000 people unemployed. Today there are more than 40 times as many.
She then tells of her personal experience as a solo mother, adding credibility to her desire to return welfare assistance to being a short term solution and enabler:
Welfare reform is an issue I am passionate about – not only in an intellectual and political sense – but, because in the mid 1980’s, after 18 years of marriage, I found myself as a sole mother with two young children on welfare. I’ve lived the day-to-day existence. I’ve seen the wasted lives. And I’ve experienced the seductive grip of a system that begins by helping – but ends by destroying self-esteem, confidence and hope. I escaped; many others did not.
Hopefully all politicians and commentators will forget the personalities and political leanings of the speakers and look pragmatically at the ideas espoused.

Every decent society must help those in need, it must help those people become valued and valuable members of society. That is not at issue here, at issue here is whether the welfare system in it's current state is addressing or inadvertently adding to the problem.

'Muzzling' state workers? It's not just 'state' workers 

Haami Piripi insists that people working for the state, and taking home over 100,000 tax payer dollars for the bother, should be allowed to carry with behaviour that has the effect of "undermining of confidence in the neutrality" of their employer.

Piripi stands by his submission and his right, as a private citizen, to make such public statements. He is wrong. This is not a issue about being Maori, or having the right to speak freely, it is exclusively an employment issue.

If My Right was to get legless at a private function and deeply offend (using extreme and volatile language) one of his employers key clients, he would be rightly censured. Further, he would likely be in the possession of a written warning the following Monday.

Piripi ".. think(s) it has significant implications for Maori public servants who come from communities who expect them to advocate for them."
If you want to be an advocate for your community, all well and good. But you owe a duty of care to your employer as well. If you can't say what you feel you must without having a detrimental impact on your employer, then you resign - simple.

Thursday, August 12, 2004

It took a couple of days 

But today's Question Time should be some good viewing. Further to the post below - Ron Mark will kick off the fun with Question 9;
9. RON MARK to the Minister of Police: Is he satisfied that police are sufficiently resourced in order to respond to all facets of crime?
Then Tony Ryall will put the slipper in;
11. Hon TONY RYALL to the Minister of Police: Which police districts operate quotas or performance measures where officers are expected to issue a certain number of tickets every hour or day they are on traffic duty, and does he agree with this system?
George is priceless when he under pressure. I'll post the highlights later.

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

"Police didn't take over Traffic, Traffic took over the Police." 

That from Greg O'Connor who has just articulated what we all already knew on Holmes - that the Government has turned the entire Police force into a glorified Traffic Unit.

Police are given a directive to order a certain number of tickets, if they don't, they lose funding. Yet the senior Police hierarchy to date have stood by their Minister and maintained that this is not a quota. In what way is it not? Please don't tell me it is policy excused by data manfactured by the contemptible LTSA.

My Right feels sorry for the Police. They are hand cuffed by Beehive revenue gathering policy, to quote Mr O'Connor, "They have lost any discretion" - without discretion, they lose the public. I will be interested to see George Hawkins in question time tomorrow (if he even fronts) - he must be in for some vociferous questioning for this.

The Police deserve better than this, more to follow.

Monday, August 09, 2004

Nothing like a good protest to get the family together 

My Right does not have strong views on the Civil Unions Bill, it is very much in the "it has very little impact on me, but seems fair enough" basket. The debate that has surrounded the Bill has much more interesting than the Bill itself to my mind. This press statement in particular caught the eye, from the Civil Union Bill Support Society:
'The sight of black shirted youth from Destiny Church marching through central
Auckland on Sat 7th against civil unions and other progressive law reforms is
appalling' says Des Smith of the Civil Union Bill Support Society

'It is disturbing to see these children being used by their bigoted and intolerant parents. How will they grow up in today's world? Will they be the future gay bashers? Should they discover that they themselves have a homosexual orientation will family pressures lead them to consider suicide? I hope not but the risk is there'

'The march is reminiscent of the rise of Hitler in Nazi Germany. How ironic it is that they should be using the well known Martin Luther King slogan "Enough is Enough". King stood strongly for justice and equality and opposed intolerance'

'Is the Destiny rally at parliament later this month going to provide a further
opportunity for children to be misused?

If so it will be very evident that Destiny followers do not espouse the same wholesome family values as thousands of other heterosexual or gay and lesbian families throughout NZ'.
My Right had the pleasure of witnessing this 'protest' whilst sitting in the traffic jam it caused and would be astonished if anymore than a handful of the 'protesters' knew what their cause was that day. Kids everywhere were enjoying a good play on the road in downtown Auckland, and adults, as indifferent to the kids whereabouts as they were to the "protest" itself. Tamaki was in a pair of leather strides that could have caused moral outrage on their own.

Nothing more than a recruitment drive and publicity seeking bollocks for Destiny in the name of intolerance - and the Police let them hold up central city traffic for it. Surely there is a vacant carpark somewhere in Auckland for these guys to bring there kids up in.

Thursday, August 05, 2004

There's no pleasant definition of "Bilious" 

OK - so Damian has caught me out, and done me a favour. The Cracker has detected some 'blog envy', and he knows a hit seeker when he sees one. (My Right can only speculate that Damian discovered my bile whilst carefully monitoring his own traffic).

My Right thought it a touch vapid to resort to the traditional "Russ Brown-baiting" that many on the right tend to resort to when trying to get things going, so I moved my supercilious gaze to Cracker. As he correctly notes, on this occassion, I agreed with the majority of what he had said. But saying "I agree" on it's own was hardly going to elicit a response - so instead, antagonistic praise was the order of the day.

So, found out, insulted, and thoroughly fulfilled by the whole carry on.

Anyone keen to make a call on this one?? 

A judge has been accused of sending the wrong message to men who assault their spouses by throwing another lifeline to a wife-beating overstayer.

The allegation has been levelled at District Court Judge Philip Recordon after indications yesterday that he would consider letting Tuvaluan overstayer and kidney patient Senee Niusila walk free on charges of assault and threatening to kill his wife.
It should be a given that this guy, who is already an overstayer, should be turfed out immediatley. But given that Niusila needs life saving dialysis (at a lazy $70,000 for the kiwi tax payer) it appears he will be allowed to stay as long as he undertakes an 'anger management' course. It is clear to My Right that this decision was made with more weight given to extraneous circumstance than the actual law that applies to every other New Zealander.

"His life is in his hands, not mine," Judge Recordon told the court - 'because I am going to be responsible for his death, so I have instructed the next judge to be if he is bad again', he may or may not have added. Most opposition MP's have come out and said - let the courts judge the law, anything beyond that is a matter for the Minister of Immigration - and I think they are right.

Mr O'Connor, all yours.

Sunday, August 01, 2004

The Mallard - an indegenous duck 

OK - there is a lot to like in Mallard's speech on where we are as a Nation and as New Zealanders. The full text of the speech is here - but some of the highlights for My Right are quoted below:
There has to be frank and open debate on what New Zealand is about, and on the futures we can share together. Partisan and sectional politics on these issues will get us nowhere. People who sand-bag themselves into die-hard positions will not be part of creative and positive solutions. (An easy and simple enough conclusion - but needed to be said)

Michael King was passionate about New Zealand and about the emergence of a unique New Zealand identity. He rightly pointed out that for most New Zealanders, regardless of their ethnicity, home is here, Aotearoa New Zealand.

He argued that just because one group has been here longer than another does not make its members more New Zealand than later arrivals, nor does it give them the right to exclude others from full participation in national life. (A bit of name dropping never hurts)

(And most particularly, this)The Treaty was open-ended, not a straitjacket. It was a preliminary agreement to an on-going relationship under the same law and government. The terms of that relationship have changed over the past 164 years.
The sad thing about the speech (and dramatic repositioning of Labour) is that it is purely political. He had the nerve to base his speech around the Orewa speech and say this, "Nor will race-based politics and race-based policy-delivery. Services must be on the basis of need and not because of a sense of race-based entitlement". Now - call me a touch partisan, but I would have thought Dr Don could fairly expect to copyright the phrase "need not race" in New Zealand politics? Mallard also states fairly early in the speech;
The National Party has dug itself into a bunker and thinks there’s a race war going on. National is the North Korea of New Zealand politics. They're spreading fear by threatening to go nuclear on race relations. Such a party cannot create a New Zealand that is unified and at peace with itself.
This dig is particularly interesting in the back drop of todays lead story in the SST quoting the prospect of "civil war" (also see post below).

In what is clearly a blatantly vote recovering repositioning of Labour - My Right can't help but think Mallard would have come across a lot better, and a touch less cynical, if he had simply delivered his speech and left the politics out of it. But there are some interesting (read - irrational) responses to issues starting to flow from Level 9 of the Beehive, and how this goes down with Labour internally could definately take the gloss of this weekends Poll results.

I don't know what scared me more.... 

The words of Maori Language Commission chief executive Haami Piripi or My Right's initial (and emotive) reaction. In his "violently-worded submission" relating to the Foreshore and Seabed legislation, Piripi said:
"Maori people will never accept this action of the Crown as legitimate and we will fight against it creating a festering sore in New Zealand society,"
"This country could be brought to its knees by internal conflict and perhaps civil war over the coming decades as a direct result of this bill."
My Right immediately wanted ask Piripi whether this was a threat or a warning. And if it was a threat, follow up by asking "and how do you think you boys will get on in that civil war?".

Not a response My Right is proud of by any stretch, but one that I think is in danger of becoming more and more common. Brash's Orewa speech made it acceptable to robustly debate the 'Maori issue' with some freedom - but I don't think any punter on the pakeha side of the debate has ever been quite so inflammatory and irresponsible.

The fact that this person holds public office is even more disturbing. It would be nice to see other members of the Maori community haul this guy over the coals and tell him that this sort of inflammatory nonsense does nothing to progress an already heated debate. It merely turns more and more reasonable New Zealander's off having any sort of constructive dialogue.

So to Haami Piripi - thanks mate, a good stride backwards for us all.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com