New Zealand - The right to leave our country

[Sanx]

Nop cause the IRA had basically handed all guns in by then

No it bloody wasn't. The IRA had not handed anything in (and still haven't in fact). The trigger was George Dubya Shrub's speech about denying terrorists funding and shelter. After 25+ years of the Brits asking the yanks to declare the IRA a terrorist organisation to stop the considerable flow of money (and support) from Irish enclaves like Boston, Chicago and New York via NORAID, it couldn't be seen for the yanks to allow terrorist funding for some but not others, especially if they wanted allies in their war on terror.

So the funding did dry up virtually immediately, the IRA was declared a terrorist organisation thus making donation of money a criminal offence and removing campaign platforms from leading IRA and Sinn Fein figures. And lastly, 9/11 did change people's acceptance of acts of violence. The IRA and Sinn Fein were bright enough to realise that they weren't going to be able to continue in the same vein and started seriously talking about peace. Weapons were never handed in, but under the oversight of a UN-appointed Canadian general, together with witnesses from both the Protestant and Catholic church, the weapons were 'permanently rendered beyond use' (a phrase that took months of negotiations to agree upon) by the simple expendient of digging a big hole, throwing them in and pouring tonnes of concrete over them.

[Grahameeboy]

No it bloody wasn't. The IRA had not handed anything in (and still haven't in fact). The trigger was George Dubya Shrub's speech about denying terrorists funding and shelter. After 25+ years of the Brits asking the yanks to declare the IRA a terrorist organisation to stop the considerable flow of money (and support) from Irish enclaves like Boston, Chicago and New York via NORAID, it couldn't be seen for the yanks to allow terrorist funding for some but not others, especially if they wanted allies in their war on terror.

So the funding did dry up virtually immediately, the IRA was declared a terrorist organisation thus making donation of money a criminal offence and removing campaign platforms from leading IRA and Sinn Fein figures. And lastly, 9/11 did change people's acceptance of acts of violence. The IRA and Sinn Fein were bright enough to realise that they weren't going to be able to continue in the same vein and started seriously talking about peace. Weapons were never handed in, but under the oversight of a UN-appointed Canadian general, together with witnesses from both the Protestant and Catholic church, the weapons were 'permanently rendered beyond use' (a phrase that took months of negotiations to agree upon) by the simple expendient of digging a big hole, throwing them in and pouring tonnes of concrete over them.

The Peace Process
The move was also hastened by a series of disastrous IRA attacks, including the killing of people attending a Remembrance Day ceremony in Enniskillen. Multi-party negotiations began in 1994, without Sinn Féin. The Provisional IRA declared a ceasefire in the autumn of 1994. The Conservative government had asked that the IRA decommission all of their weapons before Sinn Féin be admitted to the talks, but the Labour government of Tony Blair let them in on the basis of the ceasefire.

Source - Wiki

9/11 just stopped American tolerance for funding...the elements were already in place.

[scracha]

Source - Wiki

9/11 just stopped American tolerance for funding...the elements were already in place.

Have you been there or are you just getting your (mis)information from Newspapers? Pop over to Londonderry, refer to the country as "Ulster" (hell, refer to it as Londonderry instead of Derry) and see how peace is working at the ground level. Every British and US leader has supposedly achieved a more peaceful Northern Ireland. Besides, the point I made originally was that Christian denominations can't get on with one another, never mind "other" religions. Today's "ceasefire" (I won't say peace) in Northern Ireland has more to do with rising house prices than anything Tony Blair or the Clinton's ever managed.

[Badcat]

search "pat condell" on itunes.
podcast about religious PC gone mad in the UK.

[Marmoot]

To describe both ethnic Tibetans and Han Chinese as 'asian' and assume therefore that they're the same is analagous to me claiming there's no difference between Maori and Tongans, for instance.

Irelevant. To describe ethnic tibetans and han chinese as asians is factually true.

Plus the matter of fact that the Chinese quarell with the Tibetans are based on nationalities regardless of which ethnics in China (it's not only ethnic Han) wants Tibet and which ethnics in Tibet wants to be free.

---

But coming back to the original topic, it is very hypocritical for NZ society to claim that these recent immigrants should integrate/assimmilate/etc while when NZ as a nation originally was constructed from (as you have said) combination of beliefs and ideas.

What is more debatable is the fact that New Zealand as a nation says the true culture of NZ is Maori Culture, Maori Language, Maori Arts, etc (check out your tourism booklets) while in reality how many of Pakehas can speak Maori and understand Maori culture? It is simply pretentious.

Perhaps we should either own up and say
"those tourism propaganda isn't true and our culture is British" (effectively making true my assumption that original settlers were unable to integrate to the local NZ culture),
or "our culture is indeed Maori but so many of so-called-kiwis currently still fail to integrate/assimmilate/etc themselves" (effectively making true my assumption that those saying immigrants should integrate are immigrants that fail to integrate themselves).

Either way you take it, it makes the original letter posted in the 1st post of this thread sounds idiotic and redneck-ignorant. Which was the point of my original post.

[MisterD]

Irelevant. To describe ethnic tibetans and han chinese as asians is factually true.

That's a fucking stupid argument, and you know it. No different from me (as a pom) calling an Italian a "wop" and claiming it isn't racist because we're both European.

[Drew]

That's a fucking stupid argument, and you know it. No different from me (as a pom) calling an Italian a "wop" and claiming it isn't racist because we're both European.

Indians call themselves asian.

[Oscar]

Indians call themselves asian.

English, French, Greek and Russians call themselves European.

[MisterD]

That's because India in in Asia...fwiw, if you say "Asian" to most Brits they'll assume you mean Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Sri Lankan

[Sanx]

Irelevant. To describe ethnic tibetans and han chinese as asians is factually true.

Plus the matter of fact that the Chinese quarell with the Tibetans are based on nationalities regardless of which ethnics in China (it's not only ethnic Han) wants Tibet and which ethnics in Tibet wants to be free.

Whilst ethnic Tibetans and Han Chinese are regarded as 'asians' by the west, they would not regard themselves as the same. And how they regard themselves is what matters.

---

But coming back to the original topic, it is very hypocritical for NZ society to claim that these recent immigrants should integrate/assimmilate/etc while when NZ as a nation originally was constructed from (as you have said) combination of beliefs and ideas.

The predominant culture in NZ is a western european one and has been so for more than one hundred years. The country's laws, customs and language reflect this. Whilst cultures do change and evolve over time, it is not the place of new immigrants to this country to demand that laws and customs change to reflect their beliefs. You might regard that as hypocritical, given that the first europeans to land on these shores did exactly that, but the world has moved on a long way since then; something Maori would do well to remember occasionally.

What is more debatable is the fact that New Zealand as a nation says the true culture of NZ is Maori Culture, Maori Language, Maori Arts, etc (check out your tourism booklets) while in reality how many of Pakehas can speak Maori and understand Maori culture? It is simply pretentious.

Who says that? I've never seen NZ being referred to like that. Tourist information generally refers to a mixed European and Maori culture (here, for instance). You might get some brochures in Maori tourist enclaves that like to portray NZ as exclusively Maori (whilst pushing whatever tired cultural show they're selling) but the pretension is on the Maori side, not the country as a whole.

Either way you take it, it makes the original letter posted in the 1st post of this thread sounds idiotic and redneck-ignorant. Which was the point of my original post.

The first post was daft, purely and simply because it was a very poor modification of some ignorant yank rant about immigrants. But it is interesting to note that it is only Western countries that make any allowance for immigrants. Almost every other country in the world (rightly) expects immigrants to fit in with the prevalent culture and laws; not have them modified to fit their own beliefs. Try going sunbathing on a beach in Saudi, or holding a pro-democracy march in China, or launching an anti-government newspaper in Russia, or launching a pro-Jewish pressure group in Malaysia...

One of the very few exceptions is Dubai, where the ruling family decided a long time ago that given their oil reserves were nowhere near as big as their neighbours, the only way they could ensure the future wealth of the Emirate was to re-invent the country as the financial and commercial hub of the middle-east. So they invested massively in infrastructure, actively sought westerners to base businesses there and encouraged westerners to live there; having a 0% income tax rate helped. And to make the country further acceptable to the people they wished to attract, they relaxed the law that governed alcohol, gambling and un-Islamic behaviour. They now simply ask that tourists and foreigners living in Dubai respect that it is a Muslim country and ask visitors not to behave in a manner that may offend. But the push for a change of culture came from the ruling family of the country itself, not the people who went there.

[skidMark]

I still blame canada.

[skidMark]

Indians call themselves asian.

South asian holmes.

[Marmoot]

But it is interesting to note that it is only Western countries that make any allowance for immigrants. Almost every other country in the world (rightly) expects immigrants to fit in with the prevalent culture and laws; not have them modified to fit their own beliefs. Try going sunbathing on a beach in Saudi, or holding a pro-democracy march in China, or launching an anti-government newspaper in Russia, or launching a pro-Jewish pressure group in Malaysia...

So ...you wish NZ and other western countries to be like that too?

nice

[MisterD]

Well the French seem to take this stuff seriously...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/...ectid=10521586

[Mikkel]

Well the French seem to take this stuff seriously...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/...ectid=10521586

Very interesting article!

It's a problematic issue... At least the PC glove came off on this occassion - whether the ruling is Right[TM] or Wrong[TM] is hard to say though. Religious freedom is as important as the other rights of freedom - on the other hand you can make a valid case for her not integrating in the society by observing a certain religious doctrine.