The Treaty of Waitangi and its principles

In the late 1830s, there were approximately 125,000 Māori in New Zealand and about 2000 settlers. More immigrants were arriving all the time though, and Captain William Hobson was sent to act for the British Crown in the negotiation of a treaty between the Crown and Māori. The Colonial Secretary, Lord Normanby, instructed Hobson that:

‘All dealings with the Aborigines for their Lands must be conducted on the same principles of sincerity, justice, and good faith as must govern your transactions with them for the recognition of Her Majesty’s Sovereignty in the Islands. Nor is this all. They must not be permitted to enter into any Contracts in which they might be the ignorant and unintentional authors of injuries to themselves. You will not, for example, purchase from them any Territory the retention of which by them would be essential, or highly conducive, to their own comfort, safety or subsistence. The acquisition of Land by the Crown for the future Settlement of British Subjects must be confined to such Districts as the Natives can alienate without distress or serious inconvenience to themselves. To secure the observance of this rule will be one of the first duties of their official protector.’

On 6 February 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi was signed at Waitangi in the Bay of Islands by Hobson, several English residents, and approximately 45 Māori rangatira, Hone Heke being the first. The Māori text of the Treaty was then taken around Northland to obtain additional Māori signatures and copies were sent around the rest of the country for signing, but the English text was signed only at Waikato Heads and at Manukau by 39 rangatira. By the end of that year, over 500 Māori had signed the Treaty. Of those 500, 13 were women.

Principles of the Treaty

Under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal has exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of the Treaty as it is embodied in the two texts (Māori and English) and to decide issues raised by the difference between them.

The term ‘Waitangi Tribunal’ is used to refer both to the total membership and to the individual Tribunals that inquire into claims by Māori relating to actions or omissions of the Crown that may breach the principles of the Treaty. It is through its reports that the Tribunal provides its account of the Treaty principles.

In the appendix to the Rangahaua Whanui National Overview report, Dr Janine Hayward discussed the emergence of four reconciling Treaty principles, namely the principle of active protection, the tribal right to self-regulation, the right of redress for past breaches, and the duty to consult. The recognition and adherence to these principles ensure the ‘active protection’ of Māori language and culture.

Waitangi Trubunal

"Prime Minister Jim Bolger and Maori Queen Dame Te Atairangi Kaahu sign the historic (Tainui) agreement at Turangawaewae marae in Ngaruawahia" 1995 (Pic: NZ Herald)

The Treaty of Waitangi spoke of all relationships between New Zealanders, Mr Bolger said, “and we devalue it if we see it solely in terms of land claims, as many Pakehas sometimes do”. … “I see Aotearoa as a great waka,” Mr Bolger said. “It is a waka that needs many paddlers – some of them are Maori, some non-Maori. Some of them came here long ago, some in recent times.” — quoted in NZ Herald Waitangi Day 1992.

 

Blame the Blackberry

From a very-well-worth-reading Reuters article about the News Corp/News International ‘clean up’ over phone-hacking:

James [Murdoch] has consistently said that he did not know all the facts when he approved the [£700k] payment [to a hacking victim, soccer union boss Gordon Taylor] despite the revelation by the MSC in December of an email trail that would have alerted him to the scale of the problem, had he read it. His defence was that he likely read the email on his BlackBerry, as he received it on a Saturday, and did not scroll down to read all of the correspondence.

Plausible? Hmm. Yup. Likely? …

– P

Hollaback girl Fran O’Sullivan

I generally like business writer Fran O’Sullivan’s work, which can be wide-ranging and interesting and often evinces a robust, seen-it-all-before, how-stupid-do-they-think-we-are? tone. Fran doesn’t often mince words (except for when she does) and she gets points in my book for taking a position, and saying what she thinks — or how the landscape looks from where she stands.

Also, I think if we were to draw a line, I would be on the same side as Fran with respect to our pretty complete condemnation of racism and xenophobia as a policy-driver. There just have to be better reasons than irrational dislike or fear of ‘the different’ behind our decision-making.

It’s nice that Fran’s employer, the NZ Herald newspaper apparently gives her latitude to write about whatever febrile thought is wafting through her brain at the time (a bit like a blog) rather than constraining herself to mere ‘business reporting’ (yawn). If business/money/envy stuff, mergers/acquisitions, executive promotions/demotions — and, more lately, receiverships, liquidations and fraud cases — start to bore her, from the look of it, Fran can start a Best.Sandwich.Ever lifestyle slot and the Herald will publish any damn thing she writes.

Out with the old! (click)

That hairy old positioning statement ‘Business analysis and comment from Herald columnist Fran O’Sullivan’ can be phased out. Why should she be bound by that old tagline? Pfft!

While I don’t make a habit of jumping into other people’s arguments (not much) I think Fran should be encouraged to bring her amply demonstrated journalism skills to the party when she deigns to attempt to whack someone. She should not stoop to what looks to me like hollow invective and sloppy ‘logic’, thickening her (ahem) reporting with hearsay and others’ talking points laced with sly malice. Unless I’m missing something.

Judging by a brief interlude in her latest breathless epistle, Fran has apparently been criticized (quelle horreur) by bloggers and, worse, commenters on the second- or third-most visited blog in New Zealand (yeah, right) left wing organ The Standard.

Fran O’Sullivan she-no-likey

Fran can dish it out, sure, but can Fran take it? Weeeell, it doesn’t look like it, judging by today’s effort: Continue reading →

Justifying the dodgy

Mitt Romney seems to be indulging in the “I hit him first but it wuz self defence because I could see he was gunna hit me” justification I expect of a six year old.

After reportedly outspending Gingrich five-to-one with ads that were overwhelmingly negative, and explaining his philosophy as “when you’re attacked you’ve got to respond” the Massachusetts Mormon multi-millionaire is already predicting things will get HOT — and characterizing President Obama’s re-election campaign as well-funded (ahem) and negative

Asked about the negativity of the Republican race following a new report that showed that 92 percent of all of the campaign ads that ran in the Sunshine State in the week leading up to the Florida primary were attack spots, Romney said on “Good Morning America” that the fight was preparing him for what’s to come in the general election.
“What you’re seeing from speaker Gingrich is just a precursor of what you’ll see from President Obama, and in some respects, perhaps what we’re getting inoculates us, or at least prepares us, for what will come down the road,” he said. “There’s no question that Barack Obama’s billion-dollar machine will organize the most vitriolic, spiteful campaign in American history, and we’re going to have to be ready for that.”

Politico

Even allowing for Romney’s on-going fund-raising efforts, justifying dodgy tactics on the basis that you anticipate dodgy tactics from your opponents is the kind of paranoia fearful thinking that I was referring to here in Be careful what you believe:

It seems to me from what Cameron [Slater] and I discussed, that Right Wing spin doctors and bloggers/activists/schemers like him (and only a handful of others – in NZ anyway) have convinced themselves that their Left Wing ‘opponents’ are waging a dirty, unprincipled propaganda war and will stoop to virtually any sleazy strategy to gain influence or advantage. So strongly do they, as a group, hold this belief that they (the Right-wing cabal) feel they are therefore completely justified in waging a dirty, unprincipled propaganda war and to stoop to virtually any sleazy strategy to gain influence or advantage. I bet some on ‘the Left’ think exactly the same way. (Trevor Mallard, I’m looking at you. And you Martyn Bradbury.)
It’s very George W Bush ‘Bush doctrine‘ (justifying US first strikes as ‘preventive war’) … attacking ‘the enemy’ to beat them to the punch. ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’. Macho bullshit.

Romney is justifying his campaign’s carpet-bombing of Gingrinch by referring to a possible future Obama campaign as “the most vitriolic, spiteful campaign in American history” — before it’s even happened. Trying to paint Romney as the ‘virtuous’ one, despite drowning Florida in attack ads. That’s hyperbole. To put it mildly.

– P

Leonard Cohen’s new album

Yup, I’m a fan (and a fashion victim?) and, of course, immediately bought Leonard Cohen’s new album Old Ideas. I’d been waiting, as noted. It’s good.

I notice today it is #1 on iTunes.

That’s remarkable, given his longevity and the time in the wilderness and the shallow ‘music to slash your wrists by’ blurb.

There’s quite a good (4.5 out of 5) review in today’s NZ Herald from Graham Reid here. An extract:

Such lyrical refraction and shifting perspectives (on life and death as much as relationships) are what makes Cohen such a rare voice and lyricist. Old ideas, yes. But also the universals: love, forgiveness, the pain of life and the mystery of death.
Leonard Cohen remains a convincing witness to all these things, a reassuring voice and a firm and warm guiding hand.

As I have said before, this wise, humble, Canadian poet is one of my inspirations. I wish I approached his eloquence. He is an acquired taste, yes, and one I recommend you sample for yourself, if you haven’t. His multi-layered lyricism and, in a surprising way, his passion, will grow on you.

– P

Shit journalists say…

I recognize some of these!

via stuff journalists like (not Fairfax stuff)

The “We’ll do it live!” meme is, of course, Bill O’Reilly’s contribution to the planet.

– P

Matthew Hooton and the exquisite agony of being a paid shill

I’ve referred to spin doctor Matthew Hooton before — I positively delight in the shabby transparency of his gums-for-hire faux agitprop and the way he marshals an argument. He’s almost always accessible, usually very much in control of himself, except when overtaken by passion or appetite of some sort, and well, I find him just flat-out entertaining.

You may recall I referred to and posted a brief clip of his pre-election damnation of Green Party leader Russel Norman as [allegedly] a ‘confirmed Marxist Leninist’ who had (according to Matthew) ‘infiltrated’ the Green Party to make it appear mainstream while subverting it to socialist purposes (or gasp, to those of (communist?) Greenpeace global HQ!) I still believe he was being satirical. Surely.

Before waxing lyrical on politics yesterday earlier this week in his ‘commentator from the right’ gig at Radio NZ’s Nine to Noon show Matthew was pointedly asked at the outset to declare a conflict — his commercial connection — “I’m working with…” — (as a PR/’government relations’ hack? It’s not stated) to the Michael Fay led consortium seeking to overturn the government’s approval of a Chinese bid to buy 16 dairy farms formerly owned by the massively indebted Crafar family, now owned by their mortgagees.

Awkward. Here one of the National government’s chief apologists and demonizer of the left was, oops, publicly disagreeing with how Team Joyce had handled this sensitive matter and, double oops, finding merit in Labour’s position (if you can call it that).


Mp3 file here at www.radionz.co.nz

It’s worth listening — if nothing else, for sheer entertainment value as cross-footed Matthew finds himself constrained from his normal effusive denigration of the left by his, um, …other duties.

But let’s not make too big a deal of it. I enjoy Matthew’s performances and he’s good at what he does. And perhaps I’ve got it all wrong. Perhaps with the election in the bag, Matthew feels he can dial back the venom against the government’s opponents and get back to the schmoozing he does so well. (His water carrier vitriol against anyone who dares criticize — read ‘expose’ — Key/Joyce apparent governmental duplicity* not withstanding.)

Blunder? Or insight?

Hilarious. – P

UPDATE: * Like this, for instance? Highlighted by Claire Trevett at the NZ Herald.

Media neutrality vs being truthful

We’ve talked before about my distinction (not just mine!) between being ‘impartial‘ (or big O objective) versus being FAIR — which I (naively?) primarily define as telling the truth.

Some partisans (who shall remain charitably nameless lest we upset their finely-balanced narcotic calm) seem to me to frequently stoop to spinning half-truths or outright lies — bundled with vitriol, abuse and hypocritical ravings against the ‘other side’, calling them ‘nasty’ while being the epitome of an unpleasant untruthful antagonist.

It’s natural to be more sensitive to the faults of those on one’s ‘sh*t list’, but even so, it’s hard to properly capture the dismay I personally experience when someone whose analysis can at times exude rigour lets their team loyalty cause them to use unworthy agitprop tactics like smushing the facts. Too bad.

Here’s a comment I appreciate on the issue of accuracy from US broadcaster Rachel Maddow … part of an excellent profile on her I read in The Guardian last year Rachel Maddow: ‘I’m definitely not an autocutie’

“I think a lot of people of my generation are discomfited by the assertion of neutrality in the mainstream media, this idea that they’re the voice of God. I think it’s just honest to say, yes, you know where I’m coming from but you can fact-check anything I say.”

Rachel Maddow on media ’neutrality’ in The Guardian April 2011

And that, as I have said before, is where I come from too. Sure, I may have some bugbears (or bees in my bonnet?) but nothing justifies publishing non-facts in the guise of facts, or pretending to ‘break news’ when the (ahem) ‘reporter’ is, in fact, a political actor or party team player.

Re-kindling some latin: Caveat lector — Let the reader beware.

– P

As predicted, tea pot tapes released

I predicted here and elsewhere that the recording of the now infamous election campaign ‘cup of tea‘ between ACT Epsom candidate John Banks and National Party leader John Key or a transcript would be released … I called that “inevitable“.

Viz, yesterday:

The recording at soundcloud.com (click)

The recording is now available at multiple locations. This ‘cleaned up audio’ version has had five and a half thousand ‘plays’ in less that 24 hours, and, as I write this, a different copy has had about 22,000 plays at YouTube demonstrating considerable public interest, I suggest. (See my post ‘public interest’ vs ‘the issues that matter’).

– P

This is just how I see it too

It’s hard to say I told you so without sounding like a dork. But this is how I see it too. Especially about design really mattering. Following on the heels of Apple’s enormous success …

Watching Apple Win the World — John Gruber at Daring Fireball 26/01/12

David Heinemeier Hansson, on the satisfaction of being a long-time Mac user:

Macs were (and are) just better. Not just because they were better built or put together, but because Apple was a better company. A braver company. A company that stood for higher ideals. When compared to the empire of Microsoft and the Dells, Sonys of the time, it simply felt like they were more right.

For years, when Apple was down, they were held up as proof that making the best products didn’t matter. The Mac is better than Windows and look what happened was the refrain. You still hear it today, anytime Apple slips even a notch. Look no further than yesterday’s claim chowder of Henry Blodget. What’s satisfying about Apple’s current success is that it’s proof that you can succeed wildly by focusing first and foremost on making great products. That design does matter.

(Via Daring Fireball)

I like this kind of news story

A report purporting to show potentially historic levels of support from Jewish voters for Mitt Romney in a general election matchup with Barack Obama appears to be either profoundly flawed or simply fabricated. …

I like it when journos look behind claims and debunk them. Read it at Huffington Post

– P

Whacking ‘da media’ media is a simple formula

Following the upset win in South Carolina, TIME magazine on Newt Gingrinch’s strategy:

For Gingrich, this was not just a victory but also a validation. When his staff ditched him last summer amid an imbroglio over the campaign’s direction, Gingrich committed to running a lean, nimble operation that relied heavily on free media (he had little money and scant institutional support to raise it), his ability to capitalize on the glut of debates and bring crowds to their feet by filleting the media. On the trail, Gingrich likes to say that the staff exodus in June freed him to run the campaign he always wanted, wherein he exercised near-total control of strategy and messaging.

Indeed, but like a certain ‘spontaneous’ prime ministerial media conference walkout over inconvenient questions [about teapot tapes], these attacks are sometimes dressed up as ‘issues that matter’.

“I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run of for public office and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that,” Gingrich said.

CBS

Translation:
“You don’t being me flowers in the morning, anymore…”

– P

Update: Karl Rove says this (via Politico) …

After Newt Gingrich was declared the winner of the South Carolina primary Saturday night, Karl Rove suggested that the candidate has CNN’s John King to thank for his victory in the Palmetto State.
Taking on the media is always good in a Republican primary,” Rove said on Fox News. “John King couldn’t have set up the question in a more positive way for Gingrich to just nail it and haul it right out of the park.”

Mitt Romney: Arranged marriage?

There’s some typically solid and insightful analysis of the US Republican race on Politico. A good article on the dual nature of Newt Gingrich’s relationship with the ‘working press’ in Newt’s secret press pals by Ginger Gibson is worth a read:

The same candidate who on Thursday decried “the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media” shows another face to the cadre of reporters who follow his campaign day-to-day. He jokes with them, publicly celebrates their birthdays, teases them about the early hour they are often forced out of bed to cover his events.
It’s not unusual for Gingrich to chat with reporters, off-the-record, in the hotel restaurant at the end of a long day on the campaign trail — and he engages them to a degree that’s unheard of on the other campaigns.

Gibson points to Gingrich’s experience and familiarity with how those in the news media (and political reporters as a subset) actually work — and, let’s face it, an apparent greater ‘comfortable in his own skin‘ factor.

As I said in my post Media bias: In the eye of the beholder

Journalists usually respect someone who is competent at dealing with ‘da-meed-yah’ (‘feeding the chooks’ Joh Bjelke-Petersen used to say) up to a point. But we HATE it when someone is ‘using’ us, or lying or obfuscating …

And this very good article about the persistent, stubborn, good faith resistance front runner Mitt Romney faces from his rivals for the Republican candidacy, Mitt’s Night of the Living Dead by Alexander Burns:

“I’m not quite sure why either Newt or Santorum will give up while they are still landing jabs on Romney along the way,” said Florida-based strategist Ana Navarro, a former Jon Huntsman supporter who’s now unaligned. “Why should either of these two guys throw in the towel and accept Romney, when there are still significant numbers of Republicans looking for an alternative? Republicans are entering into an arranged marriage with Romney, one lacking love and passion, because so many voices are trying to convince us it’s for our own good.”Explained Navarro: “Voters, candidates, staff who dislike Romney will not be demoralized easily because their disdain for him fuels the fight and keeps them going. It will be over if they run out of money or opportunities to beat him.”

I’m feeling the stirrings of my addiction to American political coverage awakening again. Oops.
– P

Shit tech guys say: ‘Well, technically…’

For my geek pals … a laugh a minute from the sharp Daniel Eran Dilger … fantastic!

Trolling and your ‘personal brand’


This, from an interesting article by Kashmir Hill at Forbes which I read last month, dovetails in with my earlier comments (see: Drunken yobos spit in MP’s face, then skite to their mates like idiot schoolboys) about bombastic partisan bloggers and anonymous trolls paying a price for their often trenchant and Quixotic campaigns.

So what keeps people from trolling? When your name and face are attached to what you write, you start to develop what our CPO Lewis D’Vorkin loves to call “a personal brand.” I think of it as voice, authenticity, and reputation.
As writers’ bylines become bigger and our photos become more prominent, this comes to matter more. After a certain amount of race- and gender-baiting, you establish a “troll” brand and that brand may become so toxic that you become irrelevant. And that is the worst fate for any writer (and every troll): to be ignored.

This touches on what I have tried to say — here and elsewhere — about one’s online persona affecting (‘impacting’ some might say) one’s credibility … in the offline, er, real world.

I strongly believe in people being accountable for their public statements — I don’t ‘do’ anonymous comments, and sometimes that has a cost. Freedom of expression is a wonderful thing, and I respect people’s right to express their opinions and beliefs, whether I agree with them or not — hate speech, racial/religious bigotry and incitement of crime excepted.

I have personally suffered narrowly confined but none the less concrete damage to relationships as a result of reaction to comments and information I’ve posted openly here on The Paepae … which, when it happens, catches me by surprise. Perhaps it shouldn’t. Or perhaps one is never truly beyond making miscalculations and mistakes. (Myself included, naturally.)

In a recent episode the ‘damage’ went beyond the malevolent schoolboy pranks of the ‘internet marketers’ — now bankrupt or on the lam (cough) — who set out to smear me with fake blogs and internet ‘articles’ and tried to steal my identity. Then there’s the glove puppets who’ve tried to cause me unspecified harm through anonymous slander and mischief. But never mind.

The larger point, that we each — eventually — develop the reputation we deserve, remains. (A whimsical and vaguely related thought from Coco Chanel: “A woman has the age she deserves.”) It’s completely valid, as Kashmir Hill demonstrates, in this case to suggest that troll-like behavior can create a ‘toxic brand’, then alienate an audience, bore them … and even create enemies. It happens.

Fixated? Ambitious? Delusional?

The argy-bargy about Clint Heine (see comments on the drunken yobos post) wherein he claims a fixated critic is following him around the internet posting negative comments about him — and using false names to do so — illustrates the dangers of reputation.

If Heine’s claims are true (why shouldn’t we think the are?) there is someone pursuing an anonymous/pseudonymous campaign of denigration against him. Perhaps it’s not as devious or comprehensive as the one which got Crystal Cox in so much trouble, or even the silly black hat stuff aimed at me, but short of an obvious ‘whistle-blower’ rationale, it looks like Clint Heine has attracted an ‘anti fan club’ of one. That’s tiresome, but I didn’t know any of that applied when I originally described how his online interchanges with Trevor Mallard caught my eye.

Most of us have more to get on with in our lives, and therefore get on with things more important. A blog is a diversion, in most cases, a hobby, not a ‘main thing’. I still think Cathy Odgers’ 2009 description of blogging as “an utterly useless waste of a person’s time” (and yet we persist) is delightful.

For those who take blogging ultra-seriously, or who imagine building their ravings & exaggerations, their bullying & baiting — their troll-like persona — into some sort of money-machine or a full-time gig — or worse, those who nurse the slender hope that their clumsy infamy may one day lead them to the misty heights of talkback radio (ugh) or some sort of ‘media presence’ — well, they have my sympathy.

But still, who am I to dampen such ambitions? As Chanel herself may have said:

Le succès à tout prix.*

-P

*Or Frank Sinatra? “The best revenge is massive success.”