Posted by alexandra_k on March 28, 2021, at 2:28:52
i just want to point out that it isn't any kind of victory, at all if nz turns out to be a state of australia without legitimate government of it's own.
(e.g., because once parliament people (MPs and ministers) have refused to intervene, once internal and external complaints process has been exhausted, once the judiciary has reached the end of the road in delays...)
once nz parliament has been shown to be invalid...
that doesn't magically make the australian government or parliament out to be valid.
they say that the australia has closer ties to the usa than nz... but that just means that more australians have traditionally tried to flee their illegitimate government by relocating to the usa than nzers have....
but i (for one) have no desire to be a third class australian. which is how australians treat new zealanders.
even when they have the constitution.
i suspect i should apply for legal aid from australia to test the legtimacy of the nz government...
i was wrong to have said 'what did maaori want to wear to parliament -- grass skirts??'. i said it. don't regret it. i was shown wrong. i am happy for it. i was wrong. i am happy to admit it. i am pleased that my question gave people the opportunity to demonstrate to me how i am limited in my understanding / knowledge.
i learned something. i didn't think about elements of cultural dress and so on... nz leads the world in some respect about something. it started a conversation about 'white collar' and who decides what is appropriate to lead. for leaders. and the difference between the leaders and...
those forced to comply?
the people?
however...
whatever...
whenever...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1114316
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20200808/msgs/1114316.html