Professor Mutu is continuing to agitate some people with statements like this,
Stuff
She said Maori could not be racist against New Zealand European as Maori were not in a position of power.
This is a very interesting point - the power aspect and on The Standard dave brown from redave made this comment which sums up my view beautifully.
A pretty dim post actually. Just because Mutu makes over-sweeping generalisations that actually have historic truth on her side, dimpost comes along with a more crude set of generalisations and lowers the level of debate which others accept with alacrity, except for uke.
You cannot be a racist unless you impose your views by means of power. Thinking that other people, tribes or family members are different and inferior is not racism unless you can define the ‘other’ in such as way as to gain by it long term. Historically racism as we know it was invented by European colonisers to classify non-Euros as subhuman to justify ripping off their riches and impose white supremacist rule. The Catholic church had a huge upheaval before it recognised Native Americans as humans capable of ‘salvation’. It took a couple of centuries for black Africans to achieve this select status.
When this colonial rule was overturned lots of white racists retreated to countries where they attitudes where not challenged. The British in India went ‘home’. NZ was already colonised by a majority of racists who while professing equal citizenship took away the land and self-rule. In the 20th century NZ copped a big flow of ‘kith and kin’ from Africa and Britain and here their attitudes were not usually challenged because they were accepted as normal. So there is some truth to what Mutu says. In many cases racists don’t recognise they are racists because racism has been ‘institutionalised’ and made respectable as ‘bicultural’ or ‘multicultural’ by the dominant ‘culture’. As RWC says lets haka as one people.
On the other hand, reverse racism, or reciprocal racism is not really racism since it can’t be imposed. If it could be then Maori would be running the country and whites would be complaining about being at the bottom of the heap. So-called reverse racism is no more than the expression of historic grievance of the colonial past being reproduced today as Maori marginalised off their land in the underclass. White racists hide their racism by trying to claim that this reverse resentment is equally pervasive and potent as Euro racism. Historic amnesia.
Some Maori gains have been made, especially by iwi middle class, but only by begging the state to redress past wrongs and playing by the rules of capitalism – that even Brash can agree with. Begging is hardly the action of racists. But if the begging begins to look like ‘special treatment’ then the racists come rushing out to cry ‘one law for all’.
In the final analysis NZ remains a racist country and the evidence for that is the majority support for the NACT regime that continues to plunder NZ’s land and resources and deny any possibility of Maori emerging from marginalisation into economic self-sufficiency.
And I cannot see any good arguments against that. I realise that dave's analysis is broad but we must understand the big picture to really see what is before us. There are many subtle aspects of racism, bigotry and discrimination and these absurd worldviews didn't arrive out of thin air - they were created and they can be uncreated - by us.
Meanwhile on Kiwipolitico Pablo has vented his spleen at his former workmate Professor Mutu.
I am reposting this as is - I agree with the sentiments expressed - this legislation giving gerry brownlee of all people, these extraordinary powers, is seriously flawed and a potential danger for all of us - no? silly? It has happened before plenty of times around the world.
From
Pundit
An open letter to New Zealand’s people and their Parliament.
We write as a group of concerned citizens with academic expertise in the area of constitutional law and politics.
We share New Zealand’s deep concern about the physical damage to Canterbury and the personal trauma this has caused the region’s residents. All levels of government have an obligation to help the people of Canterbury rebuild their homes, businesses and lives as quickly as possible.
However, while we are united in wishing to help Canterbury recover, there is a risk that the desire to do “everything we can” in the short term will blind us to the long-term harms of our actions. In particular, abandoning established constitutional values and principles in order to remove any inconvenient legal roadblock is a dangerous and misguided step.
Yet this is what our Parliament has done, in just a single day, by unanimously passing the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010. It represents an extraordinarily broad transfer of lawmaking power away from Parliament and to the executive branch, with minimal constraints on how that power may be used. In particular:
•Individual government ministers, through “Orders in Council”, may change virtually every part of NZ's statute book in order to achieve very broadly defined ends, thereby effectively handing to the executive branch Parliament's power to make law;
•The legislation forbids courts from examining the reasons a minister has for thinking an Order in Council is needed, as well as the process followed in reaching that decision;
•Orders in Council are deemed to have full legislative force, such that they prevail over any inconsistent parliamentary enactment;
•Persons acting under the authority of an Order in Council have protection from legal liability, with no right to compensation should their actions cause harm to another person.
These matters are not simply "academic" or "theoretical" in nature. Over and over again history demonstrates that unconstrained power is subject to misuse, and that even well-intentioned measures can result in unintended consequences if there are not clear, formal measures of oversight applied to them.
We do acknowledge that the powers granted by the Act have some restrictions on their use. They only can be used to achieve the objective of the legislation (although this is very broadly defined). Five key constitutional statutes are exempted from their ambit. Orders in Council inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 may not be made. Parliament can review and reject Orders in Council, albeit through a rather slow and protracted process.
Nevertheless, the vast amount of lawmaking power given to ministers renders these limits insufficient. In particular, there need to be tight restrictions on the enactments a minister may change through an Order in Council and clear and precise grounds that justify any such change. These grounds also need to be open to review by the judiciary, to ensure that they really are met in any particular case.
Any claim that such safeguards are unnecessary because the Act’s powers will be wisely and sparingly applied, and that informal "consultation" and "public pressure" will ensure that this happens, must be resisted. Only formal, legal means of accountability, ultimately enforceable through the courts, are constitutionally acceptable.
Furthermore, the Act now stands as a dangerous precedent for future "emergency" situations. This earthquake, devastating though it has been, will not be the last natural disaster to strike New Zealand. When the next event does occur, inevitably there will be calls for a similar legislative response, which will be very difficult to resist given this example.
Finally, we emphasise that we have no partisan agenda to pursue here. The fact is that all MPs of every party joined in this action. They did so with the best of intentions, driven by an understandable desire to display their solidarity with Canterbury’s people.
But we feel their action was a mistake, and they too quickly and readily abandoned basic constitutional principles in the name of expediency. We hope that with a period to reflect on their action and the consequences this might have that they now will revisit this issue in a more appropriate manner.
Signed:
Professor Stuart Anderson, Faculty of Law, University of Otago.
Mark Bennett, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Malcom Birdling, Keble College, University of Oxford.
Joel Colon-Rios, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Richard Cornes, School of Law, University of Essex.
Trevor Daya-Winterbottom, Faculty of Law, University of Waikato.
Professor John Dawson, Faculty of Law, University of Otago.
Richard Ekins, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland.
Associate Prof. Andrew Geddis, Faculty of Law, University of Otago.
Claudia Geiringer, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Kris Gledhill, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland.
Professor Bruce Harris, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland.
Professor Mark Henaghan, Faculty of Law, University of Otago.
Dr John Hopkins, Law School, University of Canterbury.
John Ip, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland.
Carwyn Jones, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Dean Knight, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Prof. Elizabeth McLeay, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Steven Price, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Vernon Rive, Law School, Auckland University of Technology.
Mary-Rose Russell, Law School, Auckland University of Technology.
Katherine Sanders, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland.
Dr Rayner Thwaites, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington.
Professor Jeremy Waldron, New York University School of Law.
Ceri Warnock, Faculty of Law, University of Otago.
Nicola Wheen, Faculty of Law, Univerity of Otago.
Hanna Wilberg, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland.
Hat tip -
Robert Guyton and
The Standard
