Um, but isn’t that the point? That NZ’s not really got a problem the way that Oz really does have a problem?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/nov2005/stat-n03.shtml

Is does seem a funny coincidence that this riot has happened when a whole lot of radical new powers are being given to their police and armed forces so they can basically trample all ova any individual, or groups of individuals, rights.
Good old corporate fascism on the march.

“You’re actually second-guessing Frog’s post, but are too angry to admit it.”

“You think it clever to make inferences that aren’t there.”

It’s a matter of how you like your journalism. I like mine with opinions and uncertainties clearly marked as such, so I know what I should likely trust and what I need to make my own calls on. The ‘ifs’ and ‘mays’ definately help here.

I think you could’ve done with being a bit less standoffish in your post, (phrases like “let’s face it”, “be a man”, “do the right thing” are all ways of being confrontational while trying to look like you’re not. I personally don’t appreciate their use) and while I don’t agree with you, you can certainly say and think what you like about Frog’s posting habits.

do you have anything substantive to say?

1) You actually believe the ‘ifs’ and ‘mays’, but you’re too scared to say that. Why? Well, firstly because you do not want to equate your personal view with those of the Greens. You’re scared the media will latch on to something you say and turn it into the Greens position - this is your way of distancing the blog. This in turn has the effect of diminishing the usefulness of this blog.

2) You don’t actually want to argue with people because you realise your are both not articulate enough to argue, and also personally hold views that border on the indefensible. Thus your fall back is ‘may’ or ‘if’ or, as in other posts, ‘for entertainment purposes’.

3) You think it noble and clever to simply leave the unsaid to be inferred, because you do not think that polutics should be about saying what you believe and doing what you say.

The distinction I would like to make is that Brash has been pretty much maligning Maori culture and involvement in governance in his political campaign, and has put an egalitarian spin on it. Those of us who know about fighting discrimination and prejudice know that you have to do it by trusting one another, by giving and providing good will. Accusing people of priveledge doesn’t do that.

Whether the Green Party does value the culture and self-determination of China. It is for precisely that reason that they find it so important that their human rights conditions improve, and that we interfere in that regard to facilitate that improvement. The distinction underlying the difference is that Brash doesn’t really seem to care about race. That is still a harmful attitude that promotes racism in other people. The Green Party seems to me to care about all races equally as partners. That is a positive attitude that can influence others in a better direction. You can see this in how they respond to people’s reactions to their policies- Brash talks about making people held accountable for priveledge. That’s an avenging reaction which encourages hate, even if he himself doesn’t feel it. Wheras the Green MPs have always seemed to me to show how much they care about the people involved. All their comments on race have seemed inclusionary and welcoming to me. Of course, I admit that I certainly haven’t been through every single thing all of them have said

As for opposing trade liberalisation- The Green Party doesn’t oppose trade liberalisation of itself, from my understanding of it. They oppose it when its costs are greater than its benefits- for example, when subsidised fuels and transport means we are losing out on money by shipping things, when people are not given the proper information to choose products that they really desire, (although technically, giving more information IS trade liberalisation, so in that sense the party supports it) or when an open market harms our social values. (eg. products made using nuclear power might be said to fall under this category) It supports “fair trade”, which is liberalisation of trade held to a higher standard, where traditionally non-economic values like social justice, economic damage, and other such factors are controlled either by the government or by the market, provided it has proven it can effectively do so.

Interview with Robert Fisk on Iraq war.

With comments like “There are “death squads on all sides” in Iraq.

“We’re finished. The project is over. We can have as many referendums and constitutions as we like. Iraq is outside all government and Western control now with the exception of little fortresses in the green zone. And even there, mortars drop.”

“Hotel Journalists” report from the hotel room because of dangers in Iraq. Government claims are usually reported as fact because journalists are not able to verify them. Journalists often fail to tell their viewers that the “facts” have not been verified.

I put this as an illustration of where things are at, cause i noticed on xtra msn home page the news thread “delighted iraqis flock to vote” and “but the joy and determination of Iraqi voters emerging from dictatorship was still evident.” etc etc
Just another day in the life…

As to racism, what I find odd about the right is that they have such trouble thinking beyond geographically defined monarchies as the natural system of Government.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi in my view defines a kind of federastic agreement between Maori and the Crown. The Crown gets to make laws for everyone but Maori have certain rights guaranteed to them. Nothing new in that - its a lot like States rights in Australia or the US. The difference is that Maori and Pakeha are geographically intermingled. But when Don Brash says one law for all he is not so much wrong as willfully incomplete - that is only one of three articles of the Treaty on which our nation was founded.

Any if anyone starts with the “150 years ago” line, I’ll take that more seriously when people start saying that all property becomes common property after a fixed period. Imagine the outcry if people started saying “oh well the title deed to your house is 150 years old so it doesn’t count any more”. Lots of our basic rights have their origins in documents many hundreds of years old - their intepretation might have evolved but they haven’t been repudiated and they aren’t irrelevant.