I have been trying to avoid the abortion debate because like @Foxy, I think the current UK legislation (which is based broadly around viability) is probably about right.
But one thing I would say to the likes of @SandyRentool , who is notionally towards the pro-life end of the scale, is this: once you introduce the mental health of the mother as a determinator you effectively replicate what we have currently.
After all, few if any mothers would choose to terminate were they perfectly happy to bear the child. So the 'change' you suggest is de facto little or no change at all.
What we have currently is a law that isn't enforced, and as a result there is essentially abortion on demand up to a certain point in the pregnancy. (Unless you say "I don't want it coz it's a girl"). The point for debate in my position is the degree of physical or mental harm to the woman that is considered to be sufficient to be grounds for an abortion. I realise that this creates a different grey area (A month in a padded cell, well is that OK?), but I think we can all agree that this is not a black and white issue.
BTW the gender selection thing shows that the 'abortion on demand' crowd do not believe their own rhetoric. If they did they would have no interest in inquiring into reasons. What it shows is that their real belief is for absolute female autonomy on any of the grounds they happen to find acceptable but not others.
Which means that those of us who accept abortion but not unconditionally are in their company.
Speak for yourself.
If someone says they want an abortion because their foetus is female I'd find that morally repugnant and disgusting, but I don't think it should be illegal.
Freedom means respecting others have the liberty to make choices I find disgusting.
There are one or two trailing loose ends in that extraordinary series of assertions.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
Well, to start with, Pakistani isn't a race. There is no genetic test for nationality.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
I actually don’t know.
If pushed, I’d say they could be informative but only to a certain level.
I’m assuming then that you’re ok with these kind of invasive tests?
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
Ohio 2022 Primary Results NOT previously reported on PB
MEIGS COUNTY - Unincorp. Salisbury Twp Additional Cemeteries Levy – .5 mills/5 years — For the tax levy: 118; Against the tax levy: 141
Is it like the times claim, the Ohio candidate only surged to victory with Trumps endorsement?
True.
Vance was back of the pack before the endoresment; likely that Mandel, who got support from many 45 fans, would have gotten even more, had the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo not anointed the V-man.
Hope Tim Ryan tears him a new one.
Thanks for the answer.
Is hope all you got left. It’s just a economic downturn away from all the Trump loonies winning?
Moon, you may have noticed that something even bigger than the Ohio Primary happened in America this week?
News of impending overturning of Roe v Wade by US Supreme Court has tossed a MAJOR wild card into the deck for the 2022 midterms. May help Democrats to redress the enthusiasm gap, is certainly galvanizing plenty right now.
When abortion is broadly legal, you don't have harrowing stories about rape victims committing suicide rather than carry their baby to term. You don't have scandals about people prevented from crossing state lines by restrictive laws. You don't have stories about the deaths of people carrying out home abortions based on YouTube videos.
Legal abortion - at least up until about 18 weeks or so - is supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Now, do anti-abortionists (by and large) care about it more?
Probably.
But that's because most Americans haven't had to deal with abortion being illegal. Like with Brexit, it is those who wish to change the status quo who are the most motivated.
I think this is a Pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion lobby, that will end in abortion being legally endorsed at the ballot box in more than 40 states in the next decade.
One issue may be this: there are some references or suggestions in the Alito judgment to the foetus having legal personality. Depending on how these are put and interpreted, it is possible that any state pro-abortion law might be struck down as unconstitutional on the basis that the foetus - as a person - has a right to life.
I am no US lawyer and we don't have the final judgment but that might well be a risk.
In the ordinary world of ordinary words and actions we regard the unborn as obviously having rights and humanity as a whole as having duties towards them. To kick a woman in the stomach is abhorrent. To do so when they are pregnant we regard as even worse. We ordinarily think of that element of being 'even worse' as related to how we should treat the unborn as well as the woman.
To my mind it is inevitable that there will be abortions. But the issue has to balance competing rights. Neither extreme seems very good at this.
One side seeks to balance the rights. The right to abortion but with controls. The other side seeks to obliterate the rights of the woman. To ban abortion completely. The equivalence you see is imaginary. There's none.
Unfortunately, there are many on the far left in the US arguing for what amounts to infanticide.
Let’s hope a sensible middle way is the result of this argument. The actual case before the Supremes, is regarding a state law that sets a 15-week limit which is in the same ballpark as abortion laws in much of Europe.
Is your first sentence true or is it a few nutters whose views get exploited by the anti abortionists. I saw the video that @leon posted last night and I was shocked, but equally the person trying to defend the situation was reduced to a gibbering idiot. It is difficult to imagine any sane person has these views in reality.
I’ll try and find the link, but there was someone on one of the American news networks the other day, arguing for 40-week abortions and infanticide of the disabled. The quote was something like, well the fetus will be removed from the womb, and made comfortable, and then the doctor and the mother will have a conversation…
I think it’s mostly activists at this point, but it’s an illustration of the opposite problem.
If Roberts can find a way to approve the 15-week limit, whilst not overturning Roe completely, that might actually be what calms everyone down.
Is that not just a corollary of "abortion on demand up until birth" view, which for those who take the view is a matter of more of dogma than reason? Just like the 'no abortion whatsoever' at the Pro-Life end of the spectrum - also based on dogma?
I'm inclined towards a view more like the one expressed by @Sandpit - somewhere in the middle with some exceptions.
I view the claim for "middle" as heavily restricted to be rather disingenuous.
Philosophically I think it should be for the individual to decide what she does or does not want to do with her own body, her body, her choice. I'd put that in the middle of two extremes.
Extreme: Abortion forced upon her, even if she doesn't want it. Middle: Abortions allowed, but only if she wants it. Extreme: Abortions forbidden, even if she wants it.
Both extremes happen in some places and both are equally abhorrent. Let the person choose for themselves, don't force a choice upon them.
In the context of the debate in a Western country, it's a false middle, though, as approximately nobody is arguing for forced abortions against the mother's will.
Just because nobody locally is arguing for the extreme case, doesn't make it not exist or move the middle elsewhere. If people started arguing for forced abortions for a group they don't like would that move the middle in your eyes to free choice?
Choice is the middle. Compulsion is the extreme, compulsion in either direction.
The age at which a foetus becomes a human life is the real middle. Otherwise you could abort up to birth if the mother agreed
Of course you should, if that's what the mother wants, her body, her choice. But it'd be extremely rare I expect for anyone to actually want to so late in a pregnancy who didn't early and I'd assume only for very good reasons.
The moment of birth is when a new person arrives in the world who has their own body, not before.
You have to recognise, surely, that is an extreme position?
In the UK, maybe yes.
Worldwide or philosophically - not really. Or if it is then its on the extreme of freedom which as a liberal/libertarian I am quite content with being at that extreme.
Its in the middle between some states in the USA wanting to forbid the choice, and some in China wanting to forbid the choice (by forcing it upon women whom the state doesn't want to have any more).
There was controversy when I lived in Australia about a pregnant woman who was deported from Australia to China being forced to have an abortion as soon as she landed in China, here's a news article about it: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/deported-woman-forced-to-abort-baby-1.181930 - that happens quite frequently, we just knew about that case because it involved someone who was deported, normally we don't get told about these things.
I have a lot of sympathy for your view but I think the idea that there is an absolute line of 'one minute before birth, not a person and one minute after birth a person' is difficult to sustain. I think anyone looking for moral certainty in this debate is deluding themselves, really. The reality is that it is morally murky and complicated, and unfortunately lots of people, especially on the American religious right, seem unable to operate in a world that lacks moral certitude. As others have noted, I think the general presumption should be first trimester it is up to the mother completely, middle trimester it starts to become more questionable, and last trimester the presumption should be against, but in extreme cases eg of a threat to the mother's life or a serious threat to her wellbeing, her rights should absolutely take precedence. I think the law needs to be based on science and sensitivity to the mother's needs. The kind of laws being passed in the US right now are completely disgusting and represent just part of a troubling agenda to turn the country into a theocracy, but this is almost a separate issue to the abortion question, which isn't black and white.
I don't see any difficulty in sustaining it. Life begins with childbirth and childbirth is a wonderous, scary, incredible moment there is absolutely no harm in putting that as the moment that life starts.
If my children or anyone else were to ask me how long have I been alive (which they typically wildly exaggerate) I would say since my date of birth - not reverse engineer in my head to try to figure out the moment my parents got frisky with each other, or three months after they did.
Its murky because its messy, but childbirth is messy but also significant.
So do you believe that if someone kills an unborn child - say by stabbing the mother - then it should not be a crime in itself? That only the assault on the mother counts? That is the logical consequence of your position. Do you think that a drugs company that makes a drug that damages an unborn child should not be held to be guilty of any crime? Again that is the logical consequence of your position.
I would suggest you position is intellectually and practically unsustainable. I also think the overwhelming majority of people would find it morally unacceptable.
I think the assault on the mother is the crime yes and killing her foetus absolutely can and should be an aggravating factor in sentencing for that assault, which is a crime that has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
Destroying an unborn child is a crime against the child, as well as a crime against the mother. That's been the position in this country for centuries, and is entirely reasonable.
I disagree with that law and do not find it to be reasonable.
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Put it another way, if I performed a forcible abortion on a woman, 30 weeks into her pregnancy, I can assure you that woman would call me a murderer. Her objection to my action would not be based purely upon my having violated her bodily autonomy,
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Absolutely if you assault a woman like that it'd be utterly disgusting.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
So what is your view on the rights of the child?
A child has rights from the moment it is born and draws its first breath.
A foetus does not.
That is not a fact. That is an opinion. Supporting argument please.
Your question was So what is your view on the rights of the child?
That is my view. I've given my supporting argument. Yes my view is an opinion, everyone's is.
If you want to convince others you need support your assumptions.
You are saying abortion up to the point of birth is ok because an unborn baby has no rights. That is a logical argument.
When asked to support the fundamental assumption (“an unborn baby has no rights”) you get huffy and say its an opinion.
Not very convincing
Not huffy. You asked me for my view, I gave you my view. You then said its only my view.
Yes it is only my view, I never said otherwise.
There is no objective truth here. You can't dig in the ground and find a vein of inalienable rights that says that life begins at ...
My view is my view, for the reasons given. If you disagree, you're entitled to your own views.
The difference is I don't want to deny anyone a choice over their own body, I don't want to force my views on others.
I’m asking you for the ethical and philosophical underpinnings for your view.
My ethical and philosophical underpinning is my opinion that the woman is an independent person who should control her own body and the foetus is not.
I do think controls (eg term limts) are important but in essence I agree. Although tbh I find much of the chinstroke on the subject less than fascinating. Just go to the heart of the matter. Stripping women of the ability to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is to downgrade them to something less than adults in charge of their own body. It puts female empowerment and gender equality back by almost half a century. Nobody who isn't comfortable with that outcome can possibly support it.
(and I think hardly any PBers do, so great)
Also: is it my imagination, or is about 80% of the discussion on PB coming from males (in the old sense) rather than females (ditto)? Hard to tell with anonymity, but I do wonder.
It is but tbf PB is largely male so I guess that's inevitable.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
Well, to start with, Pakistani isn't a race. There is no genetic test for nationality.
I used that as example, feel free to insert whatever “race” you have deemed acceptable according to your ethnologue.
I have been trying to avoid the abortion debate because like @Foxy, I think the current UK legislation (which is based broadly around viability) is probably about right.
But one thing I would say to the likes of @SandyRentool , who is notionally towards the pro-life end of the scale, is this: once you introduce the mental health of the mother as a determinator you effectively replicate what we have currently.
After all, few if any mothers would choose to terminate were they perfectly happy to bear the child. So the 'change' you suggest is de facto little or no change at all.
What we have currently is a law that isn't enforced, and as a result there is essentially abortion on demand up to a certain point in the pregnancy. (Unless you say "I don't want it coz it's a girl"). The point for debate in my position is the degree of physical or mental harm to the woman that is considered to be sufficient to be grounds for an abortion. I realise that this creates a different grey area (A month in a padded cell, well is that OK?), but I think we can all agree that this is not a black and white issue.
BTW the gender selection thing shows that the 'abortion on demand' crowd do not believe their own rhetoric. If they did they would have no interest in inquiring into reasons. What it shows is that their real belief is for absolute female autonomy on any of the grounds they happen to find acceptable but not others.
Which means that those of us who accept abortion but not unconditionally are in their company.
Speak for yourself.
If someone says they want an abortion because their foetus is female I'd find that morally repugnant and disgusting, but I don't think it should be illegal.
Freedom means respecting others have the liberty to make choices I find disgusting.
I think it should definitely be illegal on the grounds that if enough parents make the same choice, it fucks up societys male/female ratio with significant social consequences.
I don't. That's a solution in search for a problem, people aren't doing that at a scale that would make any difference at all.
PS in societies where people have really wanted to do that, you can find them doing it even without abortion. Before gender screening existed, it wasn't unusual in some societies for baby girls to have some sort of fatal accident or get lost in the woods . . . that's far worse for me.
Nice that we have moved on a bit. What about encouraging and building the sort of world capable of valuing girls and boys equally? It is not rocket science. Most of us do it all the time as easily as breathing.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Well you’re not saying anything I disagree with here. As you say it’s none of your business, and I’m not sure why @Malmesbury is so keen to make it otherwise.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
I have been trying to avoid the abortion debate because like @Foxy, I think the current UK legislation (which is based broadly around viability) is probably about right.
But one thing I would say to the likes of @SandyRentool , who is notionally towards the pro-life end of the scale, is this: once you introduce the mental health of the mother as a determinator you effectively replicate what we have currently.
After all, few if any mothers would choose to terminate were they perfectly happy to bear the child. So the 'change' you suggest is de facto little or no change at all.
What we have currently is a law that isn't enforced, and as a result there is essentially abortion on demand up to a certain point in the pregnancy. (Unless you say "I don't want it coz it's a girl"). The point for debate in my position is the degree of physical or mental harm to the woman that is considered to be sufficient to be grounds for an abortion. I realise that this creates a different grey area (A month in a padded cell, well is that OK?), but I think we can all agree that this is not a black and white issue.
BTW the gender selection thing shows that the 'abortion on demand' crowd do not believe their own rhetoric. If they did they would have no interest in inquiring into reasons. What it shows is that their real belief is for absolute female autonomy on any of the grounds they happen to find acceptable but not others.
Which means that those of us who accept abortion but not unconditionally are in their company.
Speak for yourself.
If someone says they want an abortion because their foetus is female I'd find that morally repugnant and disgusting, but I don't think it should be illegal.
Freedom means respecting others have the liberty to make choices I find disgusting.
I think it should definitely be illegal on the grounds that if enough parents make the same choice, it fucks up societys male/female ratio with significant social consequences.
I don't. That's a solution in search for a problem, people aren't doing that at a scale that would make any difference at all.
PS in societies where people have really wanted to do that, you can find them doing it even without abortion. Before gender screening existed, it wasn't unusual in some societies for baby girls to have some sort of fatal accident or get lost in the woods . . . that's far worse for me.
Nice that we have moved on a bit. What about encouraging and building the sort of world capable of valuing girls and boys equally? It is not rocket science. Most of us do it all the time as easily as breathing.
That's absolutely the solution, not second-guessing women's intentions when they go through a sensitive medical procedure. 👍
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Well you’re not saying anything I disagree with here. As you say it’s none of your business, and I’m not sure why @Malmesbury is so keen to make it otherwise.
I don't think he is, I think he's pointing out the rather obvious problem elsewhere . . .
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Well you’re not saying anything I disagree with here. As you say it’s none of your business, and I’m not sure why @Malmesbury is so keen to make it otherwise.
I don't think he is, I think he's pointing out the rather obvious problem elsewhere . . .
He seems worked up about “fake” First Australian activists.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
I'd be surprised if it was at all simple.
It isn't. For a start the concept of "race" among humans has a large measure of bollocks in it - given the originators of the various racial classifications, that would only be expected.
But you can, fairly reliably, tell if someone has ancestry in one of the Native American tribes. For example. There is actually a fair bit of law on this in the US, since the invention of the Indian Reservation Casino loophole/advantage. Which has meant quite a few people claiming to belong to various tribes.
Interesting trends in Russian equipment losses (Ukraine claims thereof). Looks like Manpads, counter-battery radar and longer range artillery deliveries are now at the front line and beginning to make an impact:
Another 15 tanks, a hundred other vehicles and a couple of aircraft today.
This must be something of a modern-era record for equipment losses in a war? 70 days in, and the Russian forces are already 20-30% depleted, more in some areas. Also a huge number of senior officers and the better-trained men.
Would be interesting to compare to the percentage losses in the recent Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Well you’re not saying anything I disagree with here. As you say it’s none of your business, and I’m not sure why @Malmesbury is so keen to make it otherwise.
I don't think he is, I think he's pointing out the rather obvious problem elsewhere . . .
He seems worked up about “fake” First Australian activists.
Not worked up - commenting on an inevitable problem. One that First Americans have been dealing with for years.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Well you’re not saying anything I disagree with here. As you say it’s none of your business, and I’m not sure why @Malmesbury is so keen to make it otherwise.
I don't think he is, I think he's pointing out the rather obvious problem elsewhere . . .
He seems worked up about “fake” First Australian activists.
Not worked up - commenting on an inevitable problem. One that First Americans have been dealing with for years.
Why you should care about the integrity of race campaigners is totally beyond me, I must admit. In the universe of problems we now face, these seems pretty much bottom of the list.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
I actually don’t know.
If pushed, I’d say they could be informative but only to a certain level.
I’m assuming then that you’re ok with these kind of invasive tests?
See Adam Rutherford's book. "HOW TO ARGUE WITH A RACIST dismantles outdated notions of race by illuminating what modern genetics can and can't tell us about human difference."
Interesting trends in Russian equipment losses (Ukraine claims thereof). Looks like Manpads, counter-battery radar and longer range artillery deliveries are now at the front line and beginning to make an impact:
Another 15 tanks, a hundred other vehicles and a couple of aircraft today.
This must be something of a modern-era record for equipment losses in a war? 70 days in, and the Russian forces are already 20-30% depleted, more in some areas. Also a huge number of senior officers and the better-trained men.
Would be interesting to compare to the percentage losses in the recent Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.
Good question, to which I don’t know the answer in terms of equipment. Wiki claims that there have been 30 deaths and 40 injuries among the belligerents, so not many tanks likely to have been blown up there. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021–2022_Armenia–Azerbaijan_border_crisis
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Well you’re not saying anything I disagree with here. As you say it’s none of your business, and I’m not sure why @Malmesbury is so keen to make it otherwise.
I don't think he is, I think he's pointing out the rather obvious problem elsewhere . . .
He seems worked up about “fake” First Australian activists.
Not worked up - commenting on an inevitable problem. One that First Americans have been dealing with for years.
Why you should care about the integrity of race campaigners is totally beyond me, I must admit. In the universe of problems we now face, these seems pretty much bottom of the list.
It goes towards the whole philosophical concept of identity and the legal consequences thereof.
Once you try and divide humans into neat little packets - well, the blighters keep on scattering themselves about and mixing themselves together. And inventing new identities, almost as if they own their own identity. And borrowing other people's like a t-shirt in charity shop....
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?
I am not aware of any nonsense, or any offence.
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
You can self-identify.
NZ has long had “Māori seats”. There are now 7 (out of 72). You can choose whether to enrol in them or not, if you do so you cannot enrol in the general seats.
In practice about 1/3 of Māori vote in the general seats.
When NZ moved to PR it was recommended that the Māori seats be scrapped, but they have stayed and are pretty much a permanent fixture. There are more Māori in Parliament as a percentage than in the general population.
The above is pretty uncontroversial.
It has started to be reproduced at a local government level, which is more controversial.
What Ardern tried to do in Rotorua goes further. It proposed that 3 Māori seats be elected by 22,000 Māori voters, and 3 general seats be elected by 56,000 voters.
It has been found to contravene the Bill of Rights Act and Ardern/Labour have now withdrawn support.
Do Māori typically lean more to the left or right than other New Zealanders? It looks like an attempt to stitch up the political balance
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Well you’re not saying anything I disagree with here. As you say it’s none of your business, and I’m not sure why @Malmesbury is so keen to make it otherwise.
I don't think he is, I think he's pointing out the rather obvious problem elsewhere . . .
He seems worked up about “fake” First Australian activists.
Not worked up - commenting on an inevitable problem. One that First Americans have been dealing with for years.
Why you should care about the integrity of race campaigners is totally beyond me, I must admit. In the universe of problems we now face, these seems pretty much bottom of the list.
Because it is a means of asserting control, and linking that to a non-objective criteria - say self-ID - renders it a nonsense. Plus the promotion of identity politics is a bad idea.
Consider if a government grant, or say discriminatory selection at a top University, were to be built on a platform of self-ID. Phew.
If there is going to be discrimination then it is far better, surely, to be using something like income levels.
Interesting trends in Russian equipment losses (Ukraine claims thereof). Looks like Manpads, counter-battery radar and longer range artillery deliveries are now at the front line and beginning to make an impact:
Another 15 tanks, a hundred other vehicles and a couple of aircraft today.
This must be something of a modern-era record for equipment losses in a war? 70 days in, and the Russian forces are already 20-30% depleted, more in some areas. Also a huge number of senior officers and the better-trained men.
Would be interesting to compare to the percentage losses in the recent Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.
The only potential comparable loss rates I can think of would be the Yom Kippur war, or Iraq 1991.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Well you’re not saying anything I disagree with here. As you say it’s none of your business, and I’m not sure why @Malmesbury is so keen to make it otherwise.
I don't think he is, I think he's pointing out the rather obvious problem elsewhere . . .
He seems worked up about “fake” First Australian activists.
Not worked up - commenting on an inevitable problem. One that First Americans have been dealing with for years.
Why you should care about the integrity of race campaigners is totally beyond me, I must admit. In the universe of problems we now face, these seems pretty much bottom of the list.
Because it is a means of asserting control, and linking that to a non-objective criteria - say self-ID - renders it a nonsense.
Consider if a government grant, or say discriminatory selection at a top University, were to be built on a platform of self-ID.
As I mentioned below, the Casinos and the resultant payouts (in the US) has "found" a whole raft of shady characters, liars and scumbags.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
You can self-identify.
NZ has long had “Māori seats”. There are now 7 (out of 72). You can choose whether to enrol in them or not, if you do so you cannot enrol in the general seats.
In practice about 1/3 of Māori vote in the general seats.
When NZ moved to PR it was recommended that the Māori seats be scrapped, but they have stayed and are pretty much a permanent fixture. There are more Māori in Parliament as a percentage than in the general population.
The above is pretty uncontroversial.
It has started to be reproduced at a local government level, which is more controversial.
What Ardern tried to do in Rotorua goes further. It proposed that 3 Māori seats be elected by 22,000 Māori voters, and 3 general seats be elected by 56,000 voters.
It has been found to contravene the Bill of Rights Act and Ardern/Labour have now withdrawn support.
Do Māori typically lean more to the left or right than other New Zealanders? It looks like an attempt to stitch up the political balance
Left.
Up until 1993 they voted consistently for Labour.
That fascinating figure, Winston Peters (a kind of Māori Nigel Farage), managed to convert most of them to his populist party, but it only lasted one term.
Nowadays the only rival for them is the Māori Party, who these days can perhaps be described as far left.
Under First Past the Post, they were considered necessary to protect Māori interests given that Māori votes would otherwise be drowned out by Pakeha ones.
Under our version of PR, it doesn’t matter so much as seats in Parliament are ultimately determined by the Party Vote which pretty much ignores how constituencies are divided up.
Personally I think the Met’s purdah is appropriate. Comey was indeed an example of spectactular incompetence.
I don't agree.
The point of purdah rules is to stop the party which controls the government (national or local) from using that to influence an election by stacking major positive announcements into the immediate pre-election period. It's a bit of levelling for those who don't control the machinery of the state.
Police investigations are not like that - they are not in the control of the party in office. Clearly, great care is needed in presenting developments. But there is no reason why proceedings should be stayed, or major developments not announced in the usual way. If there was, then Parliament could legislate on that - but it has not seen fit to do so, with good reason.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?
I am not aware of any nonsense, or any offence.
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.
At the slight risk of controversy, Maori are not really indigenous people as such. Certainly not in the way Aboriginals are.
They were migrants from Polynesia in c. 13th.
Does this affect anything? I'm not sure. But the issue of people movements and rights gets sticky.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Well you’re not saying anything I disagree with here. As you say it’s none of your business, and I’m not sure why @Malmesbury is so keen to make it otherwise.
I don't think he is, I think he's pointing out the rather obvious problem elsewhere . . .
He seems worked up about “fake” First Australian activists.
Not worked up - commenting on an inevitable problem. One that First Americans have been dealing with for years.
Why you should care about the integrity of race campaigners is totally beyond me, I must admit. In the universe of problems we now face, these seems pretty much bottom of the list.
Because it is a means of asserting control, and linking that to a non-objective criteria - say self-ID - renders it a nonsense.
Consider if a government grant, or say discriminatory selection at a top University, were to be built on a platform of self-ID.
It already has, in some ways.
Some children are doing their last year (or part year*) of A-Levels, nominally at Sixth Form college or local state school. In reality they actually are being heavily tutored in all subjects.
So they can claim to be state school pupils when applying to go to university.
*One enterprising parent moved her daughter 1 month before the exams. In her private school, they had finished the syllabus and were just revising. So she kept the tutors they were using and signed her up to do her A-levels at the local FE.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Well you’re not saying anything I disagree with here. As you say it’s none of your business, and I’m not sure why @Malmesbury is so keen to make it otherwise.
I don't think he is, I think he's pointing out the rather obvious problem elsewhere . . .
He seems worked up about “fake” First Australian activists.
Not worked up - commenting on an inevitable problem. One that First Americans have been dealing with for years.
Why you should care about the integrity of race campaigners is totally beyond me, I must admit. In the universe of problems we now face, these seems pretty much bottom of the list.
Because it is a means of asserting control, and linking that to a non-objective criteria - say self-ID - renders it a nonsense. Plus the promotion of identity politics is a bad idea.
Consider if a government grant, or say discriminatory selection at a top University, were to be built on a platform of self-ID. Phew.
If there is going to be discrimination then it is far better, surely, to be using something like income levels.
So much of the American discourse especially, would be improved if more people understood that social class, rather than race, is the key determinant of life chances. If everyone focussed their efforts on the lower income groups, irrespective of race, then things might improve for those at the bottom. But instead, the activists see race everywhere and can’t let it go.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?
I am not aware of any nonsense, or any offence.
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.
At the slight risk of controversy, Maori are not really indigenous people as such. Certainly not in the way Aboriginals are.
They were migrants from Polynesia in c. 13th.
Does this affect anything? I'm not sure. But the issue of people movements and rights gets sticky.
It fascinates me that Māori only arrived in NZ around 400 years or so before Captain Cook. Much later than was assumed when I was a child.
Having said that, it’s not longevity that confers indigenous status, is it?
Note that the numbers describing themselves as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have been quite close for years.
(Some years ago, Gallup looked at the voters who would vote on the abortion issue. The numbers were small on both sides, less than 10 percent, as I recall, but the pro-life voters outnumbered the pro-choice voters by about 3-2.)
I don't know that those figures hold if and when abortion gets banned. That would radically change the motivations.
I wonder how the question is usually worded. Ask are you 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice' (?) and you'll get one split. Ask do you support a legal ban on abortion (?) and I can imagine you might get a quite different one.
Eg you feel abortion is a moral wrong, therefore identify as 'pro-life', but you wouldn't seek to impose this view upon those who don't share it, therefore would not support a ban on abortion.
There must be plenty of people like this. I certainly know a few.
Interesting trends in Russian equipment losses (Ukraine claims thereof). Looks like Manpads, counter-battery radar and longer range artillery deliveries are now at the front line and beginning to make an impact:
Another 15 tanks, a hundred other vehicles and a couple of aircraft today.
This must be something of a modern-era record for equipment losses in a war? 70 days in, and the Russian forces are already 20-30% depleted, more in some areas. Also a huge number of senior officers and the better-trained men.
Would be interesting to compare to the percentage losses in the recent Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.
The only potential comparable loss rates I can think of would be the Yom Kippur war, or Iraq 1991.
The loss rates resemble the projection for peer-on-peer combat. Iraq 1991 was staggeringly one-sided. This isn't - the Ukrainians are taking heavy loses as well.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Well you’re not saying anything I disagree with here. As you say it’s none of your business, and I’m not sure why @Malmesbury is so keen to make it otherwise.
I don't think he is, I think he's pointing out the rather obvious problem elsewhere . . .
He seems worked up about “fake” First Australian activists.
Not worked up - commenting on an inevitable problem. One that First Americans have been dealing with for years.
Why you should care about the integrity of race campaigners is totally beyond me, I must admit. In the universe of problems we now face, these seems pretty much bottom of the list.
Because it is a means of asserting control, and linking that to a non-objective criteria - say self-ID - renders it a nonsense. Plus the promotion of identity politics is a bad idea.
Consider if a government grant, or say discriminatory selection at a top University, were to be built on a platform of self-ID. Phew.
If there is going to be discrimination then it is far better, surely, to be using something like income levels.
So much of the American discourse especially, would be improved if more people understood that social class, rather than race, is the key determinant of life chances. If everyone focussed their efforts on the lower income groups, irrespective of race, then things might improve for those at the bottom. But instead, the activists see race everywhere and can’t let it go.
It is also much easier for capitalism to focus on colour, gender, and sexuality because to do so doesn’t ultimately disturb the making of money.
A focus on class implies redistribution, which is far too awkward for everyone.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?
I am not aware of any nonsense, or any offence.
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.
At the slight risk of controversy, Maori are not really indigenous people as such. Certainly not in the way Aboriginals are.
They were migrants from Polynesia in c. 13th.
Does this affect anything? I'm not sure. But the issue of people movements and rights gets sticky.
It fascinates me that Māori only arrived in NZ around 400 years or so before Captain Cook. Much later than was assumed when I was a child.
Having said that, it’s not longevity that confers indigenous status, is it?
No, you're right that it isn't. But I found myself on very sticky ground with a white South African. You can imagine how that argument was developing. He, probably correctly, pointed to people movements into southern Africa and then white European settlers.
Like a lot of things in this world it's more complex than it might at first seem.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?
I am not aware of any nonsense, or any offence.
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.
At the slight risk of controversy, Maori are not really indigenous people as such. Certainly not in the way Aboriginals are.
They were migrants from Polynesia in c. 13th.
Does this affect anything? I'm not sure. But the issue of people movements and rights gets sticky.
It fascinates me that Māori only arrived in NZ around 400 years or so before Captain Cook. Much later than was assumed when I was a child.
Having said that, it’s not longevity that confers indigenous status, is it?
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?
I am not aware of any nonsense, or any offence.
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.
At the slight risk of controversy, Maori are not really indigenous people as such. Certainly not in the way Aboriginals are.
They were migrants from Polynesia in c. 13th.
Does this affect anything? I'm not sure. But the issue of people movements and rights gets sticky.
It fascinates me that Māori only arrived in NZ around 400 years or so before Captain Cook. Much later than was assumed when I was a child.
Having said that, it’s not longevity that confers indigenous status, is it?
No, you're right that it isn't. But I found myself on very sticky ground with a white South African. You can imagine how that argument was developing. He, probably correctly, pointed to people movements into southern Africa and then white European settlers.
Like a lot of things in this world it's more complex than it might at first seem.
It is true that white South Africans have been around for a very long time. Long enough ineeed to be considered indigenous by some measures.
I’d have more sympathy with them though if they hadn’t embarked on a project of white supremacy.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?
I am not aware of any nonsense, or any offence.
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.
At the slight risk of controversy, Maori are not really indigenous people as such. Certainly not in the way Aboriginals are.
They were migrants from Polynesia in c. 13th.
Does this affect anything? I'm not sure. But the issue of people movements and rights gets sticky.
It fascinates me that Māori only arrived in NZ around 400 years or so before Captain Cook. Much later than was assumed when I was a child.
Having said that, it’s not longevity that confers indigenous status, is it?
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?
I am not aware of any nonsense, or any offence.
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.
At the slight risk of controversy, Maori are not really indigenous people as such. Certainly not in the way Aboriginals are.
They were migrants from Polynesia in c. 13th.
Does this affect anything? I'm not sure. But the issue of people movements and rights gets sticky.
It fascinates me that Māori only arrived in NZ around 400 years or so before Captain Cook. Much later than was assumed when I was a child.
Having said that, it’s not longevity that confers indigenous status, is it?
No, you're right that it isn't. But I found myself on very sticky ground with a white South African. You can imagine how that argument was developing. He, probably correctly, pointed to people movements into southern Africa and then white European settlers.
Like a lot of things in this world it's more complex than it might at first seem.
The non-nutty version(generally) is the white South Africans who describe themselves as African - they think of themselves as just the nth arrivals in a long list. Which is ongoing.
The media seem easily duped by expectations management games played by the Tories .
The Tories saying they could lose 800 seats is nonsense given the last time comparable elections were held was at the height of Mays unpopularity and they did very badly then .
So Johnson and the rest of the Tories have their lines ready to go and most of the media will not bother to explain why it’s nonsense .
The media seem easily duped by expectations management games played by the Tories .
The Tories saying they could lose 800 seats is nonsense given the last time comparable elections were held was at the height of Mays unpopularity and they did very badly then .
So Johnson and the rest of the Tories have their lines ready to go and most of the media will not bother to explain why it’s nonsense .
The equivalent set weren't at the height of May's unpopularity - 2019 was the real nadir for her, although Labour also did poorly. I agree with your broad point that 800 losses is obviously heavy expectation management, but four years ago wasn't terrible for the Tories.
The media seem easily duped by expectations management games played by the Tories .
The Tories saying they could lose 800 seats is nonsense given the last time comparable elections were held was at the height of Mays unpopularity and they did very badly then .
So Johnson and the rest of the Tories have their lines ready to go and most of the media will not bother to explain why it’s nonsense .
Point of order: It is next year's elections that were last held at the height of May's unpopularity.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?
I am not aware of any nonsense, or any offence.
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.
At the slight risk of controversy, Maori are not really indigenous people as such. Certainly not in the way Aboriginals are.
They were migrants from Polynesia in c. 13th.
Does this affect anything? I'm not sure. But the issue of people movements and rights gets sticky.
It fascinates me that Māori only arrived in NZ around 400 years or so before Captain Cook. Much later than was assumed when I was a child.
Having said that, it’s not longevity that confers indigenous status, is it?
No, it's being there before Evil Whitey.
I don’t know him. Relation of Evil Knieval?
Cousin of Snow Whitey, who went to university with Michael Gove.
The media seem easily duped by expectations management games played by the Tories .
The Tories saying they could lose 800 seats is nonsense given the last time comparable elections were held was at the height of Mays unpopularity and they did very badly then .
So Johnson and the rest of the Tories have their lines ready to go and most of the media will not bother to explain why it’s nonsense .
The media are only there to constantly churn out Tory propaganda, so its obvious what they are up too, its difficult to really find out where the partys are popularity wise after tonight, I can see lib dems doing well, but doubt that it will be a true reflection of where they stand nationally
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
I think that's an interesting comment.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
The media seem easily duped by expectations management games played by the Tories .
The Tories saying they could lose 800 seats is nonsense given the last time comparable elections were held was at the height of Mays unpopularity and they did very badly then .
So Johnson and the rest of the Tories have their lines ready to go and most of the media will not bother to explain why it’s nonsense .
In 1969, Richard Nixon proposed the Family Assistance Plan, which included a guaranteed minimum income in the form of a negative income tax. The House of Representatives passed this plan, but the Senate did not. During his 1972 Presidential campaign, George McGovern proposed a demogrant of $1,000 for every American. Critics during this time complained about implying people don't have to work for a living, and saw the program as having too little stigma; during this time, Hawaii had an established residency requirement for public aid, which one Hawaii State Senator suggested was necessary to discourage "parasites in paradise".[9]
Proposed by Russell Long and enacted in 1975, the EITC provides benefits to working recipients with earned income, but not to non-working recipients. The initially modest EITC has been expanded by tax legislation on a number of occasions, including the widely publicized Tax Reform Act of 1986, and was further expanded in 1990, 1993, 2001, and 2009, regardless of whether the act in general raised taxes (1990, 1993), lowered taxes (2001), or eliminated other deductions and credits (1986).[10] In 1993, President Clinton tripled the EITC.[11] Today, the EITC is one of the largest anti-poverty tools in the United States.[12] Also, the EITC is mainly used to "promote and support work."[11] Most income measures, including the poverty rate, do not account for the credit.
If I recall correctly, the Urban Institute, a left-leaning think tank, found that the introduction of the EITC resulted in a net shift of 25 percent for poor families. Before it, they paid about 10 percent of their income in taxes; after it was fully implemented, they got about 15 percent back. I haven't seen recent numbers.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
Presumably the caandidate's opponents, not to mention the voters, will flag up any particular nonsense? Or is there an electoral offence of pretending to be Māori?
I am not aware of any nonsense, or any offence.
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.
At the slight risk of controversy, Maori are not really indigenous people as such. Certainly not in the way Aboriginals are.
They were migrants from Polynesia in c. 13th.
Does this affect anything? I'm not sure. But the issue of people movements and rights gets sticky.
It fascinates me that Māori only arrived in NZ around 400 years or so before Captain Cook. Much later than was assumed when I was a child.
Having said that, it’s not longevity that confers indigenous status, is it?
No, it's being there before Evil Whitey.
I don’t know him. Relation of Evil Knieval?
Cousin of Snow Whitey, who went to university with Michael Gove.
Point taken re the local elections but because of where they’re taking place it’s impossible for the Tories to lose anything close to the Tories expectation management .
The media seem easily duped by expectations management games played by the Tories .
The Tories saying they could lose 800 seats is nonsense given the last time comparable elections were held was at the height of Mays unpopularity and they did very badly then .
So Johnson and the rest of the Tories have their lines ready to go and most of the media will not bother to explain why it’s nonsense .
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
I think that's an interesting comment.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon are pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
Lebanon like Northern Ireland has a consociational system. Israel does not (but does have a deliberately very proportional/low threshold system that allows parties representing a specific community to do well).
In NI, Assembly members at the start of a session choose to identify as Nationalist, Unionist or Other. They are allowed to change once per session. AMs identify per party; I'm not aware of any party's AMs identifying other than as a block, although they're allowed to.
Lots of other countries have small-scale measures to ensure minority representation, e.g. Germany has a lower electoral threshold for parties identifying with the Danish, Frisians, Sorbs or Romani minorities.
Point taken re the local elections but because of where they’re taking place it’s impossible for the Tories to lose anything close to the Tories expectation management .
To lose even 500 would be something .
500 would, I think, be more than a third of seats being defended. That's quite a bit more as a proportion than May lost in 2019. I don't really expect that level - that would be catastrophic.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
I think that's an interesting comment.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon are pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
Lebanon like Northern Ireland has a consociational system. Israel does not (but does have a deliberately very proportional/low threshold system that allows parties representing a specific community to do well).
In NI, Assembly members at the start of a session choose to identify as Nationalist, Unionist or Other. They are allowed to change once per session. AMs identify per party; I'm not aware of any party's AMs identifying other than as a block, although they're allowed to.
Lots of other countries have small-scale measures to ensure minority representation, e.g. Germany has a lower electoral threshold for parties identifying with the Danish, Frisians, Sorbs or Romani minorities.
The media seem easily duped by expectations management games played by the Tories .
The Tories saying they could lose 800 seats is nonsense given the last time comparable elections were held was at the height of Mays unpopularity and they did very badly then .
So Johnson and the rest of the Tories have their lines ready to go and most of the media will not bother to explain why it’s nonsense .
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
I think that's an interesting comment.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
Just one note.
The Māori seats were invented in 1867 because at the time there was a property qualification for general seats which rendered most Māori ineligible.
Yes I think it’s a fine line between what works and what doesn’t, but I don’t think it’s an “admission of failure”.
Point taken re the local elections but because of where they’re taking place it’s impossible for the Tories to lose anything close to the Tories expectation management .
To lose even 500 would be something .
I reckon 200 is about a par score tbh. That's what I'll be looking out for.
Interesting. Also pretty much a tie between indy and union parties - a win for indy if you allow for the split within Labour voters, not so much if you allow for the fact that most 'independents' are tulchan Tories. No wonder the official Tories are campaigning on greenery and dog shite on street corners.
In 1969, Richard Nixon proposed the Family Assistance Plan, which included a guaranteed minimum income in the form of a negative income tax. The House of Representatives passed this plan, but the Senate did not. During his 1972 Presidential campaign, George McGovern proposed a demogrant of $1,000 for every American. Critics during this time complained about implying people don't have to work for a living, and saw the program as having too little stigma; during this time, Hawaii had an established residency requirement for public aid, which one Hawaii State Senator suggested was necessary to discourage "parasites in paradise".[9]
Proposed by Russell Long and enacted in 1975, the EITC provides benefits to working recipients with earned income, but not to non-working recipients. The initially modest EITC has been expanded by tax legislation on a number of occasions, including the widely publicized Tax Reform Act of 1986, and was further expanded in 1990, 1993, 2001, and 2009, regardless of whether the act in general raised taxes (1990, 1993), lowered taxes (2001), or eliminated other deductions and credits (1986).[10] In 1993, President Clinton tripled the EITC.[11] Today, the EITC is one of the largest anti-poverty tools in the United States.[12] Also, the EITC is mainly used to "promote and support work."[11] Most income measures, including the poverty rate, do not account for the credit.
If I recall correctly, the Urban Institute, a left-leaning think tank, found that the introduction of the EITC resulted in a net shift of 25 percent for poor families. Before it, they paid about 10 percent of their income in taxes; after it was fully implemented, they got about 15 percent back. I haven't seen recent numbers.
Russell Long had a personality and political career quite different from his daddy's. The earned income tax credit testifies to the fact that Huey Long's son did share his commitment to economic justice for working people: "share our wealth".
Point taken re the local elections but because of where they’re taking place it’s impossible for the Tories to lose anything close to the Tories expectation management .
To lose even 500 would be something .
Yup. We have come a long way from a competent media doing its job. Call me old fashioned but I do like to at least start with indisputable facts.
Did you ever find out how many people died in the attack on the Mariupol theatre? Or work why it might take them so long to count the dead? https://t.co/RUKxdGW7fS
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
I think that's an interesting comment.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
Majoritarian democracy often tends to be a disaster in ethnically or religiously divided countries.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
I think that's an interesting comment.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
Just one note.
The Māori seats were invented in 1867 because at the time there was a property qualification for general seats which rendered most Māori ineligible.
Yes I think it’s a fine line between what works and what doesn’t, but I don’t think it’s an “admission of failure”.
Yes, and I think New Zealands rather unique founding treaty establishes Maori as full citizens with equal rights, a very different position to indigenous peoples in other colonies. Indeed I recall that Australian Aboriginies only got counted in the census as citizens in 1967.
While the treaty was not always implemented fairly, generally race relations in NZ seemed pretty relaxed when I was there, and biculturalism uncontroversial.
Well that’s me done my public duty. I voted Conservative. And Lib Dem. And Labour. But principally Conservative so I voted for them twice.
Whether these other choices do any good heaven alone knows. It’s far too complicated for the likes of me.
You get 10 marks for the public declaration.
5 marks off for voting Tory and then pretending it’s because “stuff is too complicated”.
Still, I don’t think we’ve had that excuse before, so one mark can be restored.
To be fair there have been local elections (we don’t have any this time), where I’ve had to scratch my head and think “hang on, I’d have to vote for everyone”.
Point taken re the local elections but because of where they’re taking place it’s impossible for the Tories to lose anything close to the Tories expectation management .
To lose even 500 would be something .
Yup. We have come a long way from a competent media doing its job. Call me old fashioned but I do like to at least start with indisputable facts.
The media took six months to discover reporting day vs day-of statistics, during COVID.
Tea and biscuits with the boss. With no tea and no biscuits.
Just wtf is going on in Putin's inner circle? Why would Lavrov have gone way out on a limb like this and changed overnight Russian middle eastern policy if Putin had no idea?
Point taken re the local elections but because of where they’re taking place it’s impossible for the Tories to lose anything close to the Tories expectation management .
To lose even 500 would be something .
Yup. We have come a long way from a competent media doing its job. Call me old fashioned but I do like to at least start with indisputable facts.
The media took six months to discover reporting day vs day-of statistics, during COVID.
Gell-Mann Amnesia.....
And don’t get me started on asking any journalist to manage basic maths when discussing percentages - e.g. percentage point rises versus percentage rises, or basic compound interest.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
Are you saying that "races" are not identifiable genetically?
They are but what the man on the street calls "race" is not what a geneticist would call race. David Reich has a very nuanced article on this:
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
I can’t think why anyone would look at either the BoE’s forecasts, or indeed the IMF’s, and then at the government’s tax and fiscal policy, and say, “yes - this is why I vote Tory”.
The Green Party of New Zealand has just voted to change their constitution, which affects who can be leader.
The Greens have two co-leaders. Previously one had to be male, and one female.
Now, - at least one must be female - at least one must be Māori
There is some weird stuff happening these days in NZ about so-called co-governance, a modern interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi which provokes new governance models to ensure special status for Māori.
The government just ended an attempt to impose a several councillors on Rotorua which could only be voted for by a special small Māori electorate, in the face of massive backlash by voters who realised it was an attack on “one person one vote”.
It is one of the reasons Jacinda will lose the next election.
How are they defining Maori. Is it someone who is 100% Maori or who is part Maori, maybe one Maori parent or grandparent ?
In Australia, at least, some of the more interesting types are going for self identification.
That is, anyone who says they are First Australian is First Australian and it's bad to question that. And asking for an actual test would be racist...
What could possibly go wrong?
How do you propose to test? Cranial measurement?
Dunno.
But I do know that "activists" who are nothing to do with the First Australians will so self identify and take up space in the political and economic landscape that First Australians sorely need.
You don’t know because if you think about it for more than five seconds you realise that self-identification is the only way to do it.
There are always weird activists getting in on one cause or another. Good luck proscribing that.
There's always genetics...
Are you proposing genetic tests before people can identify as a particular race?
I've got a radical idea, how about we treat everyone the same and do not discriminate based upon race.
What’s that got to do with the question? If someone presents to you as, say, Pakistani, are you going to demand a genetic test?
I hope not.
No. But it won't make a difference to me, so why would I?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
Indeed. It’s only problematic if you’re treating people differently according to their race. So don’t do that.
That’s nice, but in NZ the Māori seats have been around since 1867 and are reasonably uncontroversial.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
I think that's an interesting comment.
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
Majoritarian democracy often tends to be a disaster in ethnically or religiously divided countries.
Which democracies aren't ethnically or religiously divided?
Point taken re the local elections but because of where they’re taking place it’s impossible for the Tories to lose anything close to the Tories expectation management .
To lose even 500 would be something .
Yup. We have come a long way from a competent media doing its job. Call me old fashioned but I do like to at least start with indisputable facts.
The media took six months to discover reporting day vs day-of statistics, during COVID.
Gell-Mann Amnesia.....
And don’t get me started on asking any journalist to manage basic maths when discussing percentages - e.g. percentage point rises versus percentage rises, or basic compound interest.
You expect all those liberal arts majors that dominate the MSM, to be numerate?
The really, really annoying thing, is that there are some good scientific journalists out there, it’s just that they barely get used by the major TV news channels.
I find it deeply troubling how several on here are so blasé about Trump and what he nearly achieved and are not fearful of the possibility of that happening again in the future and even being successful and with comments like the constitution or congress wont allow it. It is not as if this sort of stuff hasn't happened elsewhere.
Exactly right. It was attempted in a myriad of big and small ways. It didn't work, but that doesn't mean a fresh attempt could not.
If I survive a gunshot wound by wearing body armour, dodging, and getting medical treatment, it doesn't mean I am immune to bullets - I still need to take precautions.
Comments
If pushed, I’d say they could be informative but only to a certain level.
I’m assuming then that you’re ok with these kind of invasive tests?
If on the other hand you're saying "this job is reserved only for Pakistanis" and then a white Geordie with a thick Geordie accent who's never left the country applies for it saying he's Pakistani - what's meant to happen there?
The nature of identity only matters if you're discriminating based on identity. If you're not discriminating you can identify as whatever you choose and it doesn't make a difference. Call yourself Pakistani, Kiwi, Geordie, Jew, Jedi or Klingon - its none of my business whatever you say.
But you can, fairly reliably, tell if someone has ancestry in one of the Native American tribes. For example. There is actually a fair bit of law on this in the US, since the invention of the Indian Reservation Casino loophole/advantage. Which has meant quite a few people claiming to belong to various tribes.
You can self-identify if you wish to enrol in one of those seats. As I said, it’s hard to think of a way to avoid self-identification that doesn’t lead you into a very strange place.
"HOW TO ARGUE WITH A RACIST dismantles outdated notions of race by illuminating what modern genetics can and can't tell us about human difference."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021–2022_Armenia–Azerbaijan_border_crisis
Once you try and divide humans into neat little packets - well, the blighters keep on scattering themselves about and mixing themselves together. And inventing new identities, almost as if they own their own identity. And borrowing other people's like a t-shirt in charity shop....
As Putin is finding out....
It would be weird to enrol in one of the Māori seats if you were not actually Māori, but not detrimental to the overall democratic process.
Consider if a government grant, or say discriminatory selection at a top University, were to be built on a platform of self-ID. Phew.
If there is going to be discrimination then it is far better, surely, to be using something like income levels.
Up until 1993 they voted consistently for Labour.
That fascinating figure, Winston Peters (a kind of Māori Nigel Farage), managed to convert most of them to his populist party, but it only lasted one term.
Nowadays the only rival for them is the Māori Party, who these days can perhaps be described as far left.
Under First Past the Post, they were considered necessary to protect Māori interests given that Māori votes would otherwise be drowned out by Pakeha ones.
Under our version of PR, it doesn’t matter so much as seats in Parliament are ultimately determined by the Party Vote which pretty much ignores how constituencies are divided up.
The point of purdah rules is to stop the party which controls the government (national or local) from using that to influence an election by stacking major positive announcements into the immediate pre-election period. It's a bit of levelling for those who don't control the machinery of the state.
Police investigations are not like that - they are not in the control of the party in office. Clearly, great care is needed in presenting developments. But there is no reason why proceedings should be stayed, or major developments not announced in the usual way. If there was, then Parliament could legislate on that - but it has not seen fit to do so, with good reason.
They were migrants from Polynesia in c. 13th.
Does this affect anything? I'm not sure. But the issue of people movements and rights gets sticky.
Is well worth two mins of your time…
https://twitter.com/larryandpaul/status/1522244451330142211?s=21&t=0PZ9oDtA1RGFZPCxT1IZJA
Some children are doing their last year (or part year*) of A-Levels, nominally at Sixth Form college or local state school. In reality they actually are being heavily tutored in all subjects.
So they can claim to be state school pupils when applying to go to university.
*One enterprising parent moved her daughter 1 month before the exams. In her private school, they had finished the syllabus and were just revising. So she kept the tutors they were using and signed her up to do her A-levels at the local FE.
Much later than was assumed when I was a child.
Having said that, it’s not longevity that confers indigenous status, is it?
This may or may not perpetuate BR's myth about trolling
Eg you feel abortion is a moral wrong, therefore identify as 'pro-life', but you wouldn't seek to impose this view upon those who don't share it, therefore would not support a ban on abortion.
There must be plenty of people like this. I certainly know a few.
A focus on class implies redistribution, which is far too awkward for everyone.
Like a lot of things in this world it's more complex than it might at first seem.
I’d have more sympathy with them though if they hadn’t embarked on a project of white supremacy.
The Tories saying they could lose 800 seats is nonsense given the last time comparable elections were held was at the height of Mays unpopularity and they did very badly then .
So Johnson and the rest of the Tories have their lines ready to go and most of the media will not bother to explain why it’s nonsense .
Russian President Putin has apologized to Israel’s PM Bennett for FM Lavrov’s Hitler comments. Bennett has accepted his apology.
https://twitter.com/AAhronheim/status/1522246787209302017
Needing such arrangements in the first place is an admission of failure, and a need to apply a sticky plaster, perhaps, and is it a narrow line between what works and what doesn't?
Are the cases of Israel and Lebanon pertinent with allocation of representation by community?
We could maybe add Pakistan, and how does it work in NI? Is NI self-identity as Nationalist of Unionist?
https://twitter.com/survation/status/1522224142275203076?s=21&t=KnCvt3bbalksr5U7FL20KA
You may want to learn about the Earned income tax credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit If I recall correctly, the Urban Institute, a left-leaning think tank, found that the introduction of the EITC resulted in a net shift of 25 percent for poor families. Before it, they paid about 10 percent of their income in taxes; after it was fully implemented, they got about 15 percent back. I haven't seen recent numbers.
To lose even 500 would be something .
In NI, Assembly members at the start of a session choose to identify as Nationalist, Unionist or Other. They are allowed to change once per session. AMs identify per party; I'm not aware of any party's AMs identifying other than as a block, although they're allowed to.
Lots of other countries have small-scale measures to ensure minority representation, e.g. Germany has a lower electoral threshold for parties identifying with the Danish, Frisians, Sorbs or Romani minorities.
Having said that, the 800 losses was utterly ludicrous from even a cursory glance at the figures.
The Māori seats were invented in 1867 because at the time there was a property qualification for general seats which rendered most Māori ineligible.
Yes I think it’s a fine line between what works and what doesn’t, but I don’t think it’s an “admission of failure”.
Russell Long had a personality and political career quite different from his daddy's. The earned income tax credit testifies to the fact that Huey Long's son did share his commitment to economic justice for working people: "share our wealth".
Whether these other choices do any good heaven alone knows. It’s far too complicated for the likes of me.
https://t.co/RUKxdGW7fS
5 marks off for voting Tory and then pretending it’s because “stuff is too complicated”.
Still, I don’t think we’ve had that excuse before, so one mark can be restored.
2023: No growth, possible recession
2024: No growth.
Unemployment: to rise from 3.8% to 5.5%.
These are nightmare numbers for the tories
Inflation?
The tories better hope sterling doesn't tank too badly and that stops inflation coming down like the BoE predicts.
Otherwise, well...
While the treaty was not always implemented fairly, generally race relations in NZ seemed pretty relaxed when I was there, and biculturalism uncontroversial.
Gell-Mann Amnesia.....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html
"Race is a social construct" is a realisation scientists came to in the 1940s, it is not some modern woke idea. The crux, as identified in the article, is that you can take a person and put them in Brazil and they would be considered "white". You take the same person and put them in America and they would be considered "black"
The really, really annoying thing, is that there are some good scientific journalists out there, it’s just that they barely get used by the major TV news channels.
If I survive a gunshot wound by wearing body armour, dodging, and getting medical treatment, it doesn't mean I am immune to bullets - I still need to take precautions.