Public Address - Club Politique (Home)

Sitting on Stones | Feb 09, 2006 21:58

Well, I'll soon talk about those pesky Treaty issues, but first of all wasn't the Sevens a laugh? Some of the craziest critters you've ever seen, and just about everywhere. Having been out of the country for a few years all the hype kind of caught be by surprise, but I cottoned pretty quickly that it was all a bit of fun.

The drunks congregating on the footpath outside my flat at 2am to argue were a little tedious on the second night, but you get that. There's nothing quite like the line that goes,

A: "yooooaar fucked mate"
B: "naaaah, yoooar fucked"
A: "naaaah, yoooou ah"
B: "naah, you can git fucked"
A: "where the fuck ah you goin'?"
B: [from a distance] "naaaah, git fucked".

Genius.

Anyhow. Seeing one particularly good bunch of costumes while I was out running errands on Saturday (no ticket) I had to congratulate them.

Me: "Great gear! You goin' the Sevens?"
Them: "No. We're Goths"
Me: "Oh... I'm sorry."
Them: "Don't worry man, we don't even like Rugby."
Me: "That's not what I meant."

As the formerly proud owner of about eight Cure albums I can say with great sincerity that Goth music is kind of Punk for mummy's boys. Or at least it was when it was cool. In the Eighties.

FYI, I also own an album by the only Goth Supergroup, The Glove.

And why do I feel like I just outed myself?

So, the Treaty. I think what I brought away from the two seminar series is a reinforcement of what I already thought.

Now that's usually a bad thing reserved for times when you're supposed to be learning and expanding your mind. In this case though it's because what we were told by all four speakers reinforced my perception that the Treaty remains an important document for today's New Zealand.

There's this idea floating around about the Treaty becoming irrelevant to modern New Zealand. To my mind this overlooks the important point that we need a workable framework to understand how Māori society and culture can relate to New Zealand without separatism setting in. The Treaty offers this in a concrete form.

Look, forget about all the crap debate surrounding 'the principles'. That is a legal sideshow for a limited audience. The real guts of the Treaty, as my 15 years reading and writing about it reveals to me, is the idea that New Zealand can be a place where Māori look after things Māori, and the government not only protects that right, but ensures Māori are also New Zealanders.

For some reason there's a perception out there in civil society, the public space where we debate and discuss ideas away from meddling, power-hungry political types, that being Māori and being a New Zealander are two very different things.

My experience has taught me that absolutely nothing is further from the truth. Sure there are New Zealanders, both Māori and mainstream, who would like that to be the case. To my mind though this thinking is really just refusing to acknowledge that Māori society is an integral part of New Zealand, one that not only belongs to be part of New Zealand identity, but is the one thing that distinguishes us as New Zealanders.

The trick is that unless you're willing to accept that Māori society is both part of New Zealand and yet also separate it from it, you're looking at a situation in which Māori become dissolved in the great weight of overseas ideas and people. That is to me what the Treaty can offer, it presents a picture of a place in which the mainstream is ringfenced, in order to give Māori society enough breathing room to just continue to be.

This idea isn't controversial, it isn't janus-faced. It just says, "all you mainstream people, just back the fuck up and mind your own business", and "all you Māori, there's your space, do something good with it".

Ah well. Maybe when I'm in charge someone will listen.

On a final note, you may have noticed my quiet on the 'cartoon issue'. An issue more exploited by both sides of an argument I can't remember seeing for a long time. You have madmen on one side making something out of nothing, only to have the other side being surprised when their irreverence isn't understood by some of the worlds most reverent.

Madness.

I do have a note on this bullshit 'free speech' angle though. Guys, answer me this question. Why is it that although New Zealand is 'open and tolerant' many prominent, conservative political figures don't make a big deal about their sexuality?

Do you perhaps think perhaps we all know that some issues are best not hashed out in the media, for fear of what the public do with their prejudices?

Digg this Scoopit!

Topical Again | Feb 07, 2006 19:13

So, it's Jesus. He's there nailed to the cross with those awful iron nails and looking down at the Roman invader standing at his feet.

He says, "Actually, mostly I'm horribly worried about tetanus."

Digg this Scoopit!

Applying a Topical Debate | Feb 02, 2006 21:29

Have pretty much just gotten home from a very interesting 'debate' at Te Papa. The topic was the Treaty of Waitangi, and as I'm sure you'll be aware it's something I think we should all take a positive interest in.

If you agree to that you'll also be happy to know that the turn-out was very high. And that's something good for New Zealand in the long run. The more people engaging in this type of setting the better.

Actually, walking home barely topped the experience of listening to Geoffrey Palmer and Joe Williams Talk about their respective vision of our social futures. I should mention that it wasn't actually a debate as such, but more of an exposition of ideas. So why did the walk home top the debate?

I've never seen so many well-dressed women in town. Tell you what, something like a tournament featuring a number of athletic blokes really brings out the best in the fairer sex. The last time I saw so many geeee-orgeous women out looking to break the man-drought was during the Lions Tour. That aside, she'll be some good TV this weekend.

And, Ms. Lorraine Downes, I saw you walking past me on Tory Street. Peee-ow. If you're reading this, feel free to hit the reply button below, and maybe we can jack something up? Knowing your history with men I'm happy to camp it up a little, if it makes you more comfortable. The occasional homoerotic double entendre? No problem, I'm your man.

Anyhow, the thing about public debates is always the question time. They attract nutters like ants to a picnic. Luckily the crowd was fairly liberal, so it didn't appear to be a problem until the very last question.

Welcome to Mr Stephen Franks!

Steve, do you and us all a favour mate, just go out and get a freaking job. Seriously, there's a bit of a skills shortage on at the mo, so you should be able to set something up in no time. Really.

And please, please spare us all the embarrassment of standing up and asking questions like, "Why does no one listen to me?" and "Where are all these blimmin' Maoris anyhow?"

Steve, I know the Association of Consumers and TAXPAYERS you used to represent is big on everyone making a contribution to society and that, so why in the hell don't you just take your own advice, get a job that doesn't siphon public money, and leave the nice brown(ish) people alone? Ta.

You readers, and anyone who listens to the debate on National Radio, will be happy to know that Geoffrey reminded Steve that he no longer represents anyone but himself, and the audience clapped very loudly.

The question we all ask ourselves? I found this great little blogsite that seeks to ask are ACT Party people really so stupid. Really?

Someone is asking the big questions.

And speaking of stupid. Don, I know you're a really nice guy and all, but who in the hell is writing your speeches these days? I'm not interested in the actual political content of the thing, just the fact that it's a really, really bad speech.

Let's look at one line.

"The collapse in business confidence is like the warning light on your petrol tank - ignore it at your peril. Well, it is flashing, and the Government is asleep at the wheel!"

I mean, what in the hell?

Don, a man of your considerable experience deserves better staff. So just sack him. Whoever the heck he his, just walk over to his office and ask him to pack his stuff up. Say, "You, buddy, write baloney!" and ask him to leave quietly.

You see, my question is this. If you're driving you are most likely moving at speed. That is the definition of driving. You know, moving. Only the elderly and/or retired drive slowly. So, being asleep at the wheel probably suggests that the car isn't moving. If the car is moving, then a nearly-empty petrol tank is less than half your problem, and if probably a good thing considering how tanks rupture when you fall asleep and hit things at speed?

Since you are a nice bloke, I'm happy to point you in the direction of at least one speechwriter with experience. Even better, I'm willing to sacrifice say, 50% of my current $140k salary to write for you, just because I'm a nice bloke too.

It's true that my partisan leanings do show, but with the shallowness of talent in the ranks of conservatives just at the moment, you people need to hire anyone who'll put their hands up.

Crap... I was supposed to be talking about the Treaty Debate ay? Ah well. Guess we'd better save that one till next week. It was good but.

Digg this Scoopit!