ACT leader Jamie Whyte on race

[Ab]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO140...ace-in-law.htm

David Cunliffe recently apologised to a Women’s Refuge symposium:

“I don't often say it – I'm sorry for being a man … because family and sexual violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men.”
The Prime Minister accused Cunliffe of being insincere. Maybe he was.

Or maybe not. The apology conforms to Labour party thinking. Whereas we in ACT believe in personal responsibility, the Labour party believes in collective responsibility.

Those who believe in collective responsibility see people not so much as individuals but as members of groups: men and women, gays and heterosexuals, the rich and the poor, Maori and Pakeha.

For example, the Labour Party has a rule that half the people on their list must be women. This is intended to ensure equal parliamentary representation for women.

Labour believes that a man cannot represent a woman in parliament, even if she votes for him. And that a woman automatically represents other women, even if they did not vote for her or disagree with her. All that matters is group membership.

Similarly, Cunliffe believes he is responsible for sexual violence, even though has never perpetrated any, simply because he is a man.

This “identity politics” comes easily to many people. It is a way of thinking with ancient roots in mankind’s tribal history.

Nevertheless, it is ugly. It is the mindset that lies behind such obscenities as collective punishment and clan feuding.

Overcoming this way of thinking has been one of the great achievements of modern civilisation. The most important part of this achievement is the principle that everyone is equal before the law.

* * * * *

Everybody knows the image of Lady Justice in her Grecian robes holding the scales of justice while blindfolded. But many do not know what the blindfold is supposed to stop her seeing.

The answer is the identity of the person being judged. Justice requires that she pay no heed to who it is she is judging – she will make the same decision whether you are a man or a woman, a lord or a peasant, black or white.

Alas, the principle that the law should be impartial has never been fully embraced in New Zealand. Even today, after any number of equal rights movements, New Zealand law makes a citizen’s rights depend on her race.

The reparations made to iwi by the Waitangi Tribunal are NOT an example of this. The Treaty of Waitangi gave Maori property rights over the land they occupied. Many violations of these rights followed. The remedies provided by the Waitangi Tribunal are not a case of race-based favouritism. They are recognition of property rights and, therefore, something that we in ACT wholeheartedly support.

Nevertheless, there are many areas where New Zealand law fails to be properly blind to race.

The most obvious example is the persistence of the Maori electoral roll and Maori Seats, which guarantee parliamentary representation on the basis of race. This mistake is now being repeated in the Auckland Super City, where council decisions must be run past a Maori advisory board.

Many people have opinions about what other people should do with their property. Under the Resource Management Act, how much weight your opinion carries depends on your race. If you are Maori, you have a say on these matters that others lack.

Some state run or state directed organisations openly practice race-based favouritism. I know a woman who has raised children by two fathers, one Pakeha and the other Maori. If her Pakeha son wants to attend law school at Auckland University, he will have to get much higher grades than her Maori son.

I will not go on. There is no question that the law in New Zealand is not racially impartial.

The question is why race-based laws are tolerated, not just by the Maori and Internet-Mana Parties, but by National, Labour and the Greens.

I suspect the reason is confusion about privilege.

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

But, of course, in our ordinary use of the word, it is absurd to say that Maori are privileged. The average life expectancy of Maori is significantly lower than Pakeha and Asian. Average incomes are lower. Average educational achievement is lower.

Legal privilege offends people less when the beneficiaries are not materially privileged, when they are generally poorer than those at a legal disadvantage.

Of course, many Maori are better off, better educated and in better health than many Pakeha. And these are often the Maori who take most advantage of their legal privileges, especially those offered by universities and by political bodies.

Alas, people are inclined to think in generalities, and they fail to notice that it is the materially privileged individuals in the legally privileged group who capture the benefits. They think of Maori as generally materially disadvantaged; and they see their legal privileges as a form of compensation.

But the principle of legal equality is far more important than any redistributive or compensatory impulses that people may have. It is not some philosophical nicety to be discarded because you feel guilty about what people with the same skin pigment as you did 150 or 200 years ago.

* * * * *

Why is the principle of legal equality so important?

Many people will feel no need to have it explained. To many of us, it seems no more than obvious that the law should not privilege people from one race over people from other races.

Indeed, many on the left of New Zealand politics once held this position. John Minto once led a movement devoted to fighting the legal privileges of whites in South Africa. He is now a candidate for the Internet-Mana Party, an organisation dedicated to extending racial privilege in New Zealand. If he ever believed in the principle of legal equality, he has abandoned it now.

And not just John Minto and the Internet-Mana Party. As I have said, National, Labour and the Greens – the biggest three parties in New Zealand – all support explicitly race-based laws.

Apparently, many people do need to be reminded why the principle of legal equality is important.

It is important because, without it, society becomes a racket.

When people are equal before the law, they can get ahead only by offering other people goods or services that they value. We are all playing to the same rules, and we do well only if we “deliver the goods”. This promotes not only economic growth and prosperity but civility. It forces people to attend to the preferences of others.

Where people enjoy legal privilege, by contrast, they can get ahead without doing anything of value for other people. Because the system is rigged in their favour, they don’t need to “deliver the goods”.

Suppose, for example, that the government decided that Japanese women deserved a legal privilege. They should be allowed to erect barriers across the roads they live on. Anyone wanting to proceed down the road must negotiate with these women to get the barriers lifted.

This would provide Japanese women with an opportunity to make easy money by charging people a fee to lift their barriers. It would thereby divert them from productive occupations. It would drive up the cost of travelling around the city, as people either took longer routes or paid the fees. And it would create feelings of resentment towards Japanese women.

This may sound fanciful. But it is precisely the situation that the Resource Management Act (RMA) has created with regard to resource consents and iwi. If you want to proceed with developing land near iwi, you may well have to pay iwi for permission to proceed. That easy money diverts Maori from more productive activity, drives up the cost of developing land and creates resentment towards Maori.

* * * * *

Nor does legal privilege do Maori any good over the long-run.

Allow me another analogy. Imagine that SANZAR, the body that administers the Super 15, decided that the Blues deserved a legal privilege. Whereas all the other teams will continue to earn 5 points for a try, the Blues will earn 10.

This would benefit Blues players over the short-term. They would win many more games than they now do. But giving the Blues this advantage in the rules would reduce their incentive to work hard on their skills and fitness. After a while, standards of play at the Blues would decline. Fewer Blues players would be selected for the All Blacks.

Return to those half-brothers I mentioned earlier: one Pakeha who will need an “A” to get into law school, one Maori who will need only a “C”. Which one is more likely to work hard at school? Which one is more likely to make the most of his potential?

Many Maori identify strongly with their culture. I have Maori friends who have learnt to speak Maori as adults, and they have been enriched by the experience. I see in them, and in other Maori I meet, a connection with their ancestry and with places in New Zealand lacked by many of us whose ancestors came here more recently – a connection that I envy.

But this should be a matter of complete indifference to the law. There are many cultures in New Zealand. People identify with all sorts of things. Some New Zealanders identify with their sexuality, some with their profession, some with their religion, some with their political beliefs and some – perhaps most – with nothing in particular.

The government should not select some of these “identities” as special and confer legal advantages on them. Culture should not be nationalised.

It is not only those in the non-favoured cultures who have reason to resist. Those in the nationalised culture have the most to lose.

Healthy cultures are dynamic. They evolve and adapt to the changing world. Becoming an “official”, government-sponsored culture is stultifying. What counts as Maori culture and worthy of state protection or promotion must be decided by politicians and bureaucrats under the influence of those who lobby them.

Just as Maori students do not benefit from being given an easy ride, Maori culture risks being crippled by its entanglement with the state. It risks becoming a quaint relic of the 19th century, good for tourists and “Maori leaders” on the take but of no relevance to young Maori of the 21st century.

* * * * *

Race-based favouritism is doing Maori no real good.

But even if it were, ACT would still oppose it. Because society should not be a racket, no matter who the beneficiaries are – be they men (who continue to enjoy legal privilege in many countries), the landed nobility or people of indigenous descent. Law-makers must be impervious to the special pleading of those who wish to set aside the principle of legal equality.

Alas, politicians from the other parties have not merely listened but acquiesced. New Zealand is awash with race-based law.

After the coming election, ACT’s MPs will work to have all race-based laws repealed. The precise mechanism or process must be decided once a government is formed. But the particular process followed is not as important as the goal.

There is no place for race in the law.

And there is no place for race-based laws in New Zealand.

TLDR? Tough.

[Lightspeed]

That's more of a "Don't care; didn't read" really.

Just noise to get a handful of votes from the few who don't realise we can't ignore history.

[Ab]

Doesn't mean it's not sensible.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Ab

TLDR? Tough.

Fuck you, Simon H Abner. At lest give me a reason to read all that shit.

[fixed_truth]

There's so much strawman, unscientific bs in there I wouldn't know where to start.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

Doesn't mean it's not sensible.

Bollocks isn't sensible.

[Ab]

That you don't agree with something makes it neither inherently bollocks, nor inherently insensible.

[Lightspeed]

Indeed. In this case though, the bollocks is distinct from my disagreement.

[fixed_truth]

Ok I'll bite and point out that it can't be proven that individuals can even exercise agency yet Whyte bases his position on a strict indeterministic supposition ie, humans cause their behaviour and so are solely responsible. Further, because we live in world where things don't exist independent of other things; then even IF somehow we CAN exercise some kind of control over our actions then to change peoples behaviour it would be still be pragmatic to acknowledge the wider societal influencing factors.

Also on his 'Maori privilege' tripe this is a good article on why treating people differently doesn't necessitate privilege:
http://posttreatysettlements.org.nz/...epresentation/

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

There's so much strawman, unscientific bs in there I wouldn't know where to start.

Such as?

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Also on his 'Maori privilege' tripe this is a good article on why treating people differently doesn't necessitate privilege:

Nah mate, we should all be the same. And when I say "the same", I mean like me and my mates. /s

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Ok I'll bite and point out that it can't be proven that individuals can even exercise agency yet Whyte bases his position on a strict indeterministic supposition ie, humans cause their behaviour and so are solely responsible. Further, because we live in world where things don't exist independent of other things; then even IF somehow we CAN exercise some kind of control over our actions then to change peoples behaviour it would be still be pragmatic to acknowledge the wider societal influencing factors.

Then surely the laws and policies should be articulated in such a way that they directly address "wider societal influencing factors" and not simply "Maori (y/n)?"

Do you disagree with Whyte's claim that it's wrong for a Maori child from a comfortable middle-class household to have access to educational opportunities denied to a non-Maori child from a poor household?

[Lightspeed]

I think it's racist to consider such households comparable.

[Ab]

You think it's racist to consider comfortable middle-class and poor households comparable?

It's kinda hard to work out which is which without doing that.

[Lightspeed]

It's certainly racist to think it's fair to try and understand Maori from a frame of understanding constructed by non-Maori.

What is a household? Is there a Maori concept analogous to this? Would it look very similar to a non-Maori household?

[Ab]

Weasel words.

Two nuclear family units, one disadvantaged and living under a burden of crippling poverty, the other comfortably middle-class. If the comfortable middle-class family is able to claim Maori heritage then a child of that comfortable middle-class family has access to educational opportunities that a child of the poor family does not - simply in virtue of being Maori.

Is that fair? Careful, if you say anything other than YES you're on a slippery slope to agreeing with Jamie Whyte.

[Lightspeed]

Weasel words? Da fuck? Guess I'm done here.

[Ab]

Didn't like the slope huh?

[Spoon1]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

It's certainly racist to think it's fair to try and understand Samoans from a frame of understanding constructed by non-Samoans.

What is a household? Is there a Samoan concept analogous to this? Would it look very similar to a non-Samoan household?

How about the above version?

Assume non-Maori in Ab's example to be Samoan. Any change?

Maori (and other non-whites) have lived in this country for enough time to "adapt" to its "peculiarities". To imply that Maori are inherently incapable of doing so simply because they're Maori is offensive to me.

Let's help ALL disadvantaged EQUALLY.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

Then surely the laws and policies should be articulated in such a way that they directly address "wider societal influencing factors" and not simply "Maori (y/n)?"

There are a lot of policies that aim at addressing inequalities.

Originally Posted by Ab

Do you disagree with Whyte's claim that it's wrong for a Maori child from a comfortable middle-class household to have access to educational opportunities denied to a non-Maori child from a poor household?

Afaik for a health science student to get special consideration they need to have the skills to be able to effectively work in certain Maori communities ie be accomplished in tikanga Maori and te reo.


edit: The alternative is to make it a prerequisite for ALL student to be accomplished in tikanga Maori and te reo?

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Afaik for a health science student to get special consideration they need to have the skills to be able to effectively work in certain Maori communities ie be accomplished in tikanga Maori and te reo.

Note the word that is not "race".

Come on, the list of special programmes and funding and scholarships and reserved class places for Maori students is a mile long. To be eligible you have to be of Maori descent, no matter how affluent or comfortable your circumstances. Is this fair?

[fixed_truth]

I haven't seen the list.

But imo only Govt. funded scholarships are relevant. What Ngai Tahu or any other private organisation do with their money is their business. I'm not sure what the go is with Law reserved places but regarding Medicine being of Maori decent is a prerequisite, but that alone isn't enough. You have to have the right skills to work in certain Maori communities. When you apply through Otago for example, you have to be endorsed by a relevant Maori organisation and be able to show you're qualified to work in Maori communities.

google fu edit:

Students who are deemed eligible for consideration under the Targeted Admission Scheme then go into a pool of "eligible Māori students". These students are ranked according to their academic performance in Part I (calculated on the basis of their Grade Point Average).

An application form is completed then returned to Law reception. You must identify as Māori and provide your iwi affiliation, your knowledge of te reo, participation in Māori community-based activities and participation in Māori academic programme initiatives for your current year of study.

http://www.law.auckland.ac.nz/en/for...chememori.html

[Ab]

Auckland's "targeted admission schemes" are another, albeit different, example.

https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/la...15%20FINAL.pdf

Entry into LLB Part II is limited and determined on a competitive basis. Entry into LLB Part II is calculated on the basis of your grades in LAW 121G, LAW 131, (weighted doubly) plus your best 90 points from non-law courses. The Selection Committee meets in late December.

The overall average grade required for selection into LLB Part II can vary from year to year, depending on the number of applicants. In recent years the minimum grade required has been between a B+ (GPA 6.00) and A- (GPA 7.00).

Targeted admission schemes

If you are a Māori student, an indigenous Pacific resident or disabled, have completed LLB Part I and believe you can achieve at least a C+ average, you will be encouraged to apply for LLB Part II.

Ooh yep, that's a competitive basis all right.

[fixed_truth]

I suppose theoretically someone without Maori ancestry but who is awesome in te reo, has a Maori studies qualification, is active in Maori communities etc - would be excluded on the basis of race.

[Ab]

You still haven't identified the "strawman, unscientific bs" that there is "so much of" in Whyte's speech. Any progress on that front?

[fixed_truth]

I mentioned earlier. We can't prove that we have free will so it's silly to only consider personal responsibility.

[Ab]

But moral agency isn't mentioned anywhere in Whyte's text. YOU brought it up.

You claim that Whyte's post is full of "unscientific bs". Where? There's a quote function, show us.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Spoon1

How about the above version?

Assume non-Maori in Ab's example to be Samoan. Any change?

Yes, of course that would be racist. If you want to understand Samoans, understand from their perspective as best you can.

Maori (and other non-whites) have lived in this country for enough time to "adapt" to its "peculiarities". To imply that Maori are inherently incapable of doing so simply because they're Maori is offensive to me.

Let's help ALL disadvantaged EQUALLY.

Maori were indeed well adapted to this country by the time the current non-Maori majority made their way here. It's is racist nonsense to think Maori are obliged to further adapt and accommodate beyond that which they choose to.

Racist nonsense has prevailed in NZ for some time hence the current circumstances.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

But moral agency isn't mentioned anywhere in Whyte's text. YOU brought it up.

You claim that Whyte's post is full of "unscientific bs". Where? There's a quote function, show us.

The whole premise of the first part of his speech is that of personal responsibility.

Whereas we in ACT believe in personal responsibility

Originally Posted by wikiquote

Personal responsibility is the idea that human beings choose, instigate, or otherwise cause their own actions

I’m talking about whether what ACT believe can be shown to be true. It can’t. Hence unscientific bs.

[fixed_truth]

And because I cbf pointing out all the bs in that speech I'll just leave these here:

You’ll know I’m quite serious when I say white male syndrome. Only last week Colin Craig – a self-described conservative – was pitching to the same audience. That is, the redneck and his supposed desire for equality in liberal democracy. Whyte is appealing to the same audience. But the argument is not, in fact, an argument – it’s a strategy. White men are practising identity politics.

Whyte Power: Act and the winner takes all society

It is intellectually dishonest to frame the argument in such a way that Mr Whyte has. In distorting the facts to suit his argument he has failed to achieve what he set out to do – engage in an intelligent debate about race and law in Aotearoa New Zealand. What Mr Whyte refers to as “legal privilege” is nothing more than the protection of our rights.

Unwinding A Straw-Man: ACT and Maori Quotas

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I cbf pointing out all the bs in that speech

Verily, your argument is so powerful it's not necessary to talk about it.

[[Malks] Pixie]

I tend to support both FT and LS in this. The idea of colour-blindness is a disavowing of someone's cultural identity. Our law already separates Maori from pakeha through specifically identifying them from the settler population. Does this put them in a privileged position? Well it depends on what context you are looking at it from - and a legal perspective almost always fails to capture social issues. If we are going to talk about privilege then we can only do so from multiple perspectives if we actually want to, honestly, discuss issues of privilege.

Some associated reading (because if I have to read Whytes rhetoric then I'll provide some better organised thoughts on race, ethnicity and colonial discourse).

Homi Bhabha - The Other Question: Difference, Discrimination and the Discourse of Colonialism. [Goes straight to the relevant chapter]

http://books.google.co.nz/books?hl=e...wReynRhv9pP1A4

Sara Ahmed - A Phenomenology of Whiteness

http://fty.sagepub.com/content/8/2/149.short [Don't know if this is open access or not - if not then tough luck, go to a good library and hunt it down]

Pixie

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I mentioned earlier. We can't prove that we have free will so it's silly to only consider personal responsibility.

Well, there goes the criminal justice system.

[Ab]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11301977

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

Well, there goes the criminal justice system.

I'm pretty sure our justice system is at least somewhat cognisant of this reality.

[Ab]

Nope, it can't be proven that individuals can even exercise agency hence why unscientific bs.

[Lightspeed]

Oh, sorry, you're engaging with f_t in a brain turned off fashion. Gotcha.

[Ab]

The saddest and most predictable thing about all this is that everything Whyte has said is sensible. His speech is at its heart a logically consistent expression of classical liberal philosophy (note - not "conservative"). You might not agree with the things he's said, or you might think them as hypotheticals that would never work in the real world, but his speech is a logical series of statements starting with some simple premises and leading to a political conclusion. If you agree with his premises you have to agree with his conclusion.

But the reaction to his speech has been a simple Pavlovian response of

IF ACT_RACELAW_SPEECH = 1 THEN LET BE_OFFENDED = 1

Everyone's too busy being outraged to actually read the words and address the premises. Susan Devoy, jesus, if ever there was an example of a sportsperson parachuted into a public role and being totally out of his/her depth, this is it. She's done more for ACT in the past 24 hours than ACT has done for ACT in the past year.

It's like when Whyte commented on incest last year or whenever. What he said was a simple sensible expression of individual rights and how they should be outside the sphere of government-regulated activity, but everyone lost their fucking minds. It's like he's a student of political philosophy rather than a politician.

[Lightspeed]

lolz, I'm not outraged. Whyte's comments are too stupid and ineffectual for outrage.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by Ab

His speech is at its heart a logically consistent expression of classical liberal philosophy (note - not "conservative"). You might not agree with the things he's said, or you might think them as hypotheticals that would never work in the real world, but his speech is a logical series of statements starting with some simple premises and leading to a political conclusion.

I don't disagree with that - it's a very well written essay essentially - and it should be as he's got a PhD in Philosophy after all.

I'm not outraged by it, because, as you said, it is essentially outlining his (and by extension ACT's) particular view of the world. His ideology.

What I disagree with is the root of their ideology and the denigration of cultural issues in favour of the all consuming ideal of individuality. It's literally the first couple of sentences where I go, "yeah, nah, this world view isn't for me", which is fine because I'm not really the target market anyway.

It would be nice if more polticians could actually rationalise their world views in such a way - but typically that's not the way the game of politics is played.

Pixie