New Zealand has separate Maori seats in parliament, which is something Sharples wants for the super city, and he now says democracy is failing Maori.  “There is a democratic process but it’s not working for Maori, they are outside of that system,” Sharples says.  He says the principle of one person one vote will not give Maori representation.

“Unless we find some ways for them to be more involved, that is user friendly to their culture, then we have to do something else and I believe seats for Maori is the answer,” Sharples says.

The principle of one person one vote gives every individual equal representation.  Not every racial group – every person, regardless of ethnic origin.  European countries have comparatively recently become democracies.  European societies evolved from a tribal system, in which everything belonged to the chief, the tribes were constantly at war, and no common man had individual representation.  The societies developed into feudal systems, in which everything belonged to the king or duke and his lords and knights, the kingdoms and fiefdoms were constantly at war, and no common man had individual representation.  Finally (and with much struggle) European societies became democracies.  Pre-European Maori society and culture was tribal, and the tribes were constantly at war.  Now New Zealand is a nation, not a collection of tribes or fiefdoms, and it is a democracy.  That democracy brings individual representation to all.

Maori culture, having declined for too long, is undergoing a renaissance within our democracy, and is flourishing.  So what’s this about democracy not being user friendly to Maori culture?  What does that mean, Pita?  Are you implying that Maori who, like you, have been through the NZ education system, are inherently incapable of understanding the political system, inherently incapable of benefiting from the representation they now have?  Isn’t it time to acknowledge that all can achieve and make their mark according to their abilities?  That all Maori people can aspire to academic distinction, or to become a Minister of the Crown?

But if you are right about democracy not suiting particular races, then let’s try it your way.  Let’s have a racist organisation.  Let’s have, say, separate seats for New Zealanders of European descent, and for New Zealanders of Chinese descent, and of Samoan, Tongan, ad nauseum descent.  Let’s have a racially divided proportional representation, with the interests of each racial group stridently represented by each bloc.  And decided by majority vote.

No?  You bet, no!  It would pit ethnic group against ethnic group, leading to hatred and conflict instead of acceptance and harmony.  Let’s have simple democracy instead.  It may not be ideal, but it’s the best we can hope for.

Like you, Pita, I have Maori and European ancestors.

References:

Pita Sharples on Democracy:  http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/sharples-says-democracy-not-working-maori-3428048

This is organised religion at work – massive manipulation on a scale not seen since the Dark Ages.  Its purpose is the increase and entrench the power and wealth of the UN.  If it is not constrained it will impoverish us all – while the developing nations continue to develop, financed by our CO2 carbon-credit taxes.  Think about this:

From the time of Constantine until after the Renaissance, the dominant organised religion of the Western world set up the most enduring bureaucracy of all time to build and maintain its power.  It had it all – Fear of mortality, original sin, guilt about sexuality, the seven deadly sins, blessings, indulgences, tithing, the inquisition, the priesthood, cathedrals, the Swiss Guard and more.

It still exists, but its power is but a shadow of what it was in the Dark Ages.  Sadly, nature abhors a vacuum, even a power vacuum.  So, now we have the UN.  It already has many of the infrastructure elements of the old church.  But it has lacked the driving religion that is needed for really comprehensive power.

Until now.  Now, it has Anthropogenic Global Warming.  I have seen the priesthood (the IPCC) and that’s bad enough.  I am not keen to see what the UN will do for an inquisition.

The Key Components of Organised Religion:

Organised religion purports to bring us enlightenment, universal truth, knowledge of God and salvation.  It does nothing of the sort – it’s about control, wealth and power.  It achieves this by feeding us baloney, fostering fear and guilt, positioning itself as the sole path for forgiveness of our sins,  and charging us for that “service”.

It also builds infrastructure to support its aims.  The organisational infrastructure includes bureaucracies to maintain our fear and guilt, punish us when we don’t comply with their rules, collect our payments and recruit us as disciples to promote and enforce their views.  It also always includes a priesthood whose duties include propaganda to promote the baloney that is central to its control.  Some organised religions even maintain military and security organisations.  The physical infrastructure includes imposing cathedrals, churches and temples to which we are required to come for our regular indoctrination sessions and express our gratitude.

A key element of most organised religions is fostering of hatred for non-believers and dissenters.  Those who do not believe are branded as heathens.  Any expression of dissent or disagreement from believers is branded as heresy or blasphemy, and severely punished.

Oh, good grumping grief!  Are the Poms going mad?  Bingo calling is one of the most enjoyable aspects of the game for the players – the rhythm, pitch and cadence of the caller’s voice, the traditional embellishments that globally identify the numbers.  These are as old as the game itself, as instantly recognisable as a market fishmonger’s patter, square-dance calls or a running joke in a sitcom.

The bingo call “Two fat Ladies” is so much a part of the English bingo tradition that it was adopted by two gifted female chefs as the very name of their highly successful television cooking show.  Get this – the two lady chefs were indeed fat, cheerful, entertaining and talented.  And obviously unabashed by being two fat ladies and happy to adopt the term as their own.

If a caller used the platform of the bingo hall to make gratuitous racist or derogatory jokes, then I would expect lawsuits to be a likely consequence.  Not to mention a black eye.  But bingo calls are not gratuitous insults like racist jokes.  They are the traditional fabric of bingo, part of it’s colour and ambiance, giving pleasure to the players.  What court of law would uphold such a lawsuit?  Or are English jurists as bonkers as some English local officials?

P.S. Bingo is a Pommie tradition that has even found its way to some of England’s former colonies.  The harmless group gambling game attracts faithful followers, who revel in the company, the cheerfulness, the excitement, the chance to make some extra cash for the price of an outlay so small that it has no more significance than the cost of a movie ticket.  And given the low quality of the average cinematic pot-boiler, bingo can be more entertaining.

Players each draw bingo cards, that have rows of numbers.  No two are alike.  The players pay a small fee for each game.  The pot of their fees is the jackpot for the game, and the winner takes all.

The game is led by the bingo caller, who has a sheet for each game, for which he calls the numbers in turn.  Players mark off each called number on their own card (if it is on the card).  The first player to have marked off all the numbers calls out “Bingo!” and subject to a quick check by the caller, the game is won.

P.P.S. “Pom” is an antipodean colloquialism for an Englishman.  When used without any other qualifier, it is a fond term, not a derogatory one.