Whyte crimes against logic

Jamie Whyte claims:

“Maori are legally privileged in New Zealand today, just as the Aristocracy were legally privileged in pre-revolutionary France”

Despite the absurdity of both the comment and the comparison, I still have some comments to make below. But for a longer discussion in response to Whyte’s claims see Jamie Whyte has not been thinking by Matthew RX Dentith.

Rant begins…

Starting with a relevant queston: Who has the power to make and enforce law in New Zealand?

Parliament, you know, that Westminster system that derives from the United Kingdom and was imposed on Māori in contravention of a mutual agreement between many but not all iwi and the Crown – Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That system that decreed how society – including Māori society would be organised and resources distributed. That system that confiscated Māori land, suppressed Māori culture and Māori language and in doing so took away Māori rights to self-determination.

ACT say they want equality before the law, but whose law?

The law they [ACT] decree is superior to all other forms of law and law making.

Tell me again about how this policy is about equality.

Show me where Māori are so privileged that they can create enforceable laws that meet our needs and conform to our system of order in Te Ao Māori.

Explain to me how your law to make all enforceable law doesn’t privilege the entire system in your favour.

Jamie Whyte, Leader of the ACT Party and Author of ‘Crimes Against Logic’

Image sourced from Bryce Edwards Liberation blog

But hey, Māori. Forced to justify our existence since 1840. 

Rant ends…

Advertisements

9 comments

  1. You title this post “Crimes against Logic”. You then precede to elaborate on how pakeha privilege through government was such a bad thing (which it was). However, you bemoan a groups privilege but simultaneously ask for privilege for your group. Do you not see the hypocrisy and contradiction?

    Let’s apply your logic to slavery. White people made afro-americans slaves therefore, we should flip it around and make white people slaves to afro-americans. Hmm, that does not seem right. Solving the problem of slavery with slavery is the wrong way around in it? If you fight fire with fire, you will only end up with a bigger fire.

    Let’s solve slavery with non-slavery, lets solve privilege with non privilege. Until you realise this, you will continue to make Maoridom a political football for the mass majority of who are not Maori. Democracy and minorities are not a good combination.

    Now if you listen to Jamie, he recognises Te Tiriti O Waitangi and recognises the violations of private property by the New Zealand government. He also recognises the right of Maori to resources such as the Foreshore and Seabed. Act was one of the few parties that does. Labour did not.

    Like

    1. Excuse my raspy response, but nowhere do I ask for privilege for Māori. I ask for an equal right to be self-determining. I would have thought as someone who identifies as anarchist that was a given.

      I also did not argue that Māori want to subjugate Pakeha, as you seem to imply with your comment ‘lets apply your logic’ but thanks for that strawman and the patronisation of your response.

      I’ll note, that it was Jamie that made Māori a ‘political football’ by targeting Māori as part of his election campaign.

      I agree, Jamie does recognise property rights, but in a western context and under a rubric developed by western ideals, prioritising those ideals over the philosophies and practices of Māori. So excuse me if I remain unmoved by your argument.

      Like

      1. Hold up, I may have misinterpreted. So Jamie is advocating for the removal of privilege; he’s specifically mentioned the RMA and governments. Maori are privileged in the government by being guaranteed seats whereas other ethnicites are not. Maori get special vote etc. Maori are also ordained specific rights over other peoples property through the RMA. Rights which no other ethnic group has. Is this not privilege? Given that you do not support privilege I take it you do not support the Maori seats nor the RMA privileges which is great.

        Now, does government give special privileges? Of course it does, but Jamie has consistently been all about reducing government. Opening up charter schools for different forms of education etc. The Act Party is the only party that talks about reducing privilege; all the others just want to give extra privileges away.

        You are correct to ask why the justice system is not self-determined and yes it should be. Western governments is a crock of privileged majority bullshit. But why ask only Jamie that? Why attack him with such vitriol, one of the few questioning privilege at all?

        A property right is control of a resource. So you are saying that if we gave Maori ownership and control of the Foreshore and Seabed then Maori would still be unable to practice their philosophies and practices on them? Because if we give Maori complete control they cannot be themselves?

        Maori practiced property rights just like every other human group that has ever existed. Maori had their own entire justice system built around protection of property rights. Ownership and property rights is the right to practice whatever philosophy or practice you wish without the consent of your peers.

        Like

      2. Jamie is not advocating for the removal of privilege. He is advocating for the removal of Māori to have a say in the decisions that directly affect them. He is saying ‘I respect your property rights under my law, but I care more about my property rights and I have no interest in your right to self-determination, because my law is superior and that is the law that matters’. This echoes colonisation.

        I dont have the time to repsond to all the questions and assumptions you have made, but I will note that your argument is not anarchist it is right libertarian. An anarchist would not ignore the subsidy that history provided to Pakeha through colonisation. An anarchist would not ignore first principles about ‘voluntary agreement’, i.e. The Treaty. The Treaty was not a document simply about property rights. It entailed notions of sovereignty, self-determination, partnership and equality between peoples.

        We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. And I most certainly will not be voting ACT in this election.

        Like

      3. I interpreted this post as: Jamie Whyte is wrong about privilege because white people are privileged. Thus my first post working through why fighting privilege with privilege is a bad idea.

        I don’t doubt this privilege, nor would Jamie which is why he’d like to see a very small government and me, well none like you.

        Vote Act to remove privilege 😉

        Like

      4. One thing at a time:

        “He is advocating for the removal of Māori to have a say in the decisions that directly affect them”

        Maori governing other peoples property under RMA is privilege. And Maori only voting to have extra seats in parliament which can then vote on bills which affect all other ethnicities is privilege. Privilege is “the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities” and these have been given to Maori over and above other ethnicites.

        Like

  2. > ” An anarchist would not ignore first principles about ‘voluntary agreement’, i.e. The Treaty. ”

    I’m an anarchist and yes I would think that within that context of anarchy it is reasonable to ignore that (“‘voluntary agreement’, i.e. The Treaty. “”).

    Because did *I* ever agree to that voluntary agreement? And if I didn’t, how on earth is it voluntary?

    A bunch of old white guys, and a bunch of old Maori guys, agreed to this. Who are all dead a long long time ago.

    It boils down to the point, should I suffer for the sins of my fathers? Should I be made slave to their past actions from long ago?

    Like

  3. The very idea of applying anything other than the current legal system in the modern context is absurd. Unless you’re proposing some form of separatism, one law for all seems to be the only way to go since it’s taken root in almost every country on earth. Maori and Pakeha aren’t the only people with a place in New Zealand now that we have people of all different cultures immigrating here. At least Act supports a legal system that allows the incorporation of all cultures as opposed to just one.

    Like

Comments are closed.