NZ owns the commonwealth games

sea_shell: Tangata whenua are the indigenous peoples of NZ.

Blackflag: I've read the American Constitution. Saying that you don't read the laws of other nations is pretty ignorant.

Basically it says that the monarch has no power to govern our country directly, and leaves our governor-general in that task. Originally we did retain aspects of the British judiciary, and British titles etc but we've now dropped all of those too. The only aspects of our country that remain British in any real sense are one of our two national anthems, and the little emblem on the side of our flag. Oh, and because of a screwed up legal principle, the Magna Carta apparently remains in partial force. But apart from that we're just as much a British entity as you guys are.

Also, just want to add my support to sea_shell's comment. New Zealand has an amazingly strong independent identity. We don't play polo and drink cups of tea while wearing silly hats like the British do, let's just put it that way. While I will have to admit the treaty she mentioned has been rather relegated to enforced-only-when-convenient status, it still sets us apart from every other British colony in the world.

admin: No, it is not at all ignorant to say I haven't read others laws. You hold people to incredibly high standards don't you. To say I'm not intrested in the politics of New Zealand is one thing, but to then claim I'm ignorant for not having read that document is just crossing the line. I have actually read the Haroush declarations and some of the Westminster statute, so the claim was baseless as well.

"I've read the American Constitution"
We have 314 million people and are more involved in world affairs. It is much more understandable to have read our constitution rather than that of a small country. New Zealand isn't a regional power, and is mostly isolated in the international community. Let's not forget, the Statute of Westminster isn't a constitution either.

"Basically it says that the monarch has no power to govern our country directly, and leaves our governor-general in that task."
I am well aware. My point was that the monarch in general ties you to a British identity. NZ will always be associated with Britain.

"originally we did retain aspects of the British judiciary, and British titles etc but we've now dropped all of those too"
I am aware of this as well. You misunderstood my position. I said earlier that no matter how different nations are from Britain, white commonwealth countries will always be tied with the British. It doesn't matter if you were a Neo-Nazi fascist nation, it wont be more dominant than the monarchy.

"But apart from that we're just as much a British entity as you guys are"
False..........

- We don't have a British monarch (she will always be British)
- We don''t have a British naval jack on our flag
- We don't have those silly half accents or anglo-heritage (only 1% of americans originate from England)

"New Zealand has an amazingly strong independent identity"
Cuture, yes. Identity, no.

"While I will have to admit the treaty she mentioned has been rather relegated to enforced-only-when-convenient status, it still sets us apart from every other British colony in the world"
Yeah, not my point. New Zealand is independent, but isn't sovereign. It reminds me of the feudal disputes between England and France. To put it simply, you have a Brit sitting on New Zealand's throne.

sea_shell: The native community and customs definitely differentiates New Zealand culturally.

nzlockie: In that case we're mostly in agreement (I think). There isn't hostility in what I'm saying. Simply pointing out that England and New Zealand are strongly linked, yet New Zealands culture isn't imposing itself on Britain. It is the other way around.

Blackflag: "Why would I have read the statute of Westminster? I'm pretty sure President Obama hasn't read other nations laws or constitutions."
In other words, you wouldn't read the laws or constitutions of other nations. I'm pretty sure that when President Obama talks about Egypt's constitution, for example, he's actually read what he's on about. Obama comes from a legal background after all. The point of my statement was not to criticize what you personally may or may not have read. It was merely to attack the notion of not engaging with the laws of other nations more generally. As laws around the world go, probably only a couple of the UN/Geneva conventions have greater applicability than the statute of Westminster. For example, when you say New Zealand is not sovereign, but the statute of Westminster specifically states that New Zealand is sovereign, I would consider it a reasonable thing to say that overlooking the statute is silly. I'm not expecting you to have read New Zealand's constitution (mostly because we don't even have a written one, really - our government is super informal). I'm not even the one who expected you to read the treaty of waitangi. But the statute of Westminster, in my view, should be known pretty generally.

To put it simply - New Zealand's throne is not occupied by the queen. It is occupied by the governor-general, who is not a Brit. The governor-general is appointed by the prime minister (also not a Brit) as the ceremonial head of state. The governor-general is the one who gives the royal assent to our laws. While according to customary law the governor-general is representative of the queen, in practice there is no legal force behind this. I further wouldn't say New Zealand is isolated in the regional community. Particularly among Pacific nations we've proven as important a power as America and Australia in dealing with their issues. To be fair, Indonesia, Australia and a few of the pacific islands are the only nations within our hemisphere of the globe. That's all our region consists of. Even so we've been very active in international politics as well.

Only 6% of New Zealanders originate from England. It's not much different from your average European nation. The vast majority of New Zealand's immigrants currently are coming from countries other than Britain. Very little of our country has a strong Anglo-heritage - in fact, we have whole French and Dutch towns here that celebrate that as their background, but it's hard to find anything analogous for British settlements. You have to understand that our early politicians were very concerned with pointing out to new migrants that New Zealand was nothing like Britain, because Britain at the time was in poverty. They painted New Zealand as a "land of milk and honey" or "God's own country", to encourage the establishment of an independent tradition here. People came to New Zealand for a chance to build a new, better society - unlike, say, Australia, which was a British convict colony under strict British home office supervision. This is why every NZder on this site has come out and said New Zealand's identity is different from the British one. If anybody knows an identity, it's the subject themselves.

I guess my point is not to judge a nation just because they come from the commonwealth as being British by nature. Half of Canada is more French than British, as an obvious example. Similarly New Zealand has it's own differences that make us unique. We may all be representatives of the British queen as commonwealth nations, but we are not tied to her in any way meaningful enough to define our identity. I think it would be a narrow-minded view of identity to see it as merely the top left quarter of a nation's flag.

admin: I like wearing silly hats.
Also, while I don't think we honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi as much as we should (and don't get me started on the past) I know it's foundational to many situations I personally am in, being involved in education. Lip service is everwhere when it comes to Te Tiriti but baby steps are still steps in the right direction. Ahakoa he iti, he paunamu .

And that "women's right to vote" thing is right up there too. With the All Blacks.

I accept that we're a little country and therefore I don't expect people from big countries to know much about our international identity, but I definitely think that foreign politicians would know us. Us refusing to let the US use us as a strategic military base for example. Our stance on international conflict is a big deal, it sends a message to everyone that we have principles and that we will not be bullied, regardless of how small we are. Our record on women's rights and racial equality set a precident for a lot of other countries.
Again, this won't mean much to the public of a foreign country, but being prepared to make those stands buys you influence on an international stage.

And I like the queen. I like a monarchy and I think, as far as monarchs go, shes a good one. I don't care if she's got a funny accent. I reckons she genuinely looks out for our best interests, even if that sees us pull away from the UK. (I also think I'm a minority in that thinking though)

Go team Kiwi!

admin: "In other words, you wouldn't read the laws or constitutions of other nations. I'm pretty sure that when President Obama talks about Egypt's constitution, for example, he's actually read what he's on about. Obama comes from a legal background after all. "
Okay, but that isn't the point. You called me ignorant for not knowing a set of laws designed for a country I'm not in. I'm sure by similar logic that you're ignorant for not knowing the following important American political laws.
- PPACA
- NNSCAR
- SSA

"The point of my statement was not to criticize what you personally may or may not have read. It was merely to attack the notion of not engaging with the laws of other nations more generally"
Not so. You pretty much outright said not reading the laws of other nations is ignorant.

"As laws around the world go, probably only a couple of the UN/Geneva conventions have greater applicability than the statute of Westminster"
Which I have read, but the law isn't as important as you might think. Outside the commonwealth, it has no bearing on 80% of the world. So yea, I would say the Geneva Conventions have more bearing than the Statute of Westminster. Speaking of which, have you read the Geneva Conventions?
:
"For example, when you say New Zealand is not sovereign, but the statute of Westminster specifically states that New Zealand is sovereign, I would consider it a reasonable thing to say that overlooking the statute is silly."
I had this talk with a guy named Zylorachy on debate.org. He claimed that England was a country because the constitution said so. I told him, and quite correctly, that England doesn't fit the definition of country. I'm going to equate this scenario with one we have in the United States. Under our constitution, the Indian tribes are sovereign. Yet we regulate their commerce, diplomatic relations, military defense, and approve all laws they pass. Let me ask you, are they still sovereign just because a piece of paper says they are?

"To put it simply - New Zealand's throne is not occupied by the queen. It is occupied by the governor-general, who is not a Brit"
Yeah, and who does the governor general answer to? A british monarch. Does she formally rule your country? No. But officially you are being ruled by another nations ruler, tied to another nations flag, and an increasingly similar identity.

"Only 6% of New Zealanders originate from England. It's not much different from your average European nation. The vast majority of New Zealand's immigrants currently are coming from countries other than Britain."
Wikipedia says that the vast majority of your nationality come from Britain and Scotland. I read up on it, and apparently New Zealanders had British Nationality up until 1977. I'm not saying New Zealand isn't diverse, but it definitely didn't experience any major immigration booms throughout history outside of Britain.

": They painted New Zealand as a "land of milk and honey" or "God's own country", to encourage the establishment of an independent tradition here. People came to New Zealand for a chance to build a new, better society - unlike, say, Australia, which was a British convict colony under strict British home office supervision."
Just so we're on the same page, I am not saying New Zealand isn't unique. I'm saying that it is commonly associated as being strongly British. The culture is probably incredibly diverse, but politically, you are associated with Britain. At

"Half of Canada is more French than British, as an obvious example"
22% of Canada is British, and 15% French. Those are the two larges ethnic groups. Which is why they aren't completely in the same boat as New Zealand. There is more nationalist sentiment from the conservatives in the country, with high public opinion against monarchy like Australia. Anyways, Canada is very Americanized. I go there often and it is pretty much the States with a different government and slightly different lifestyle.

" We may all be representatives of the British queen as commonwealth nations, but we are not tied to her in any way meaningful enough to define our identity."
I'll restate what I've been saying. This isn't evident to people outside your country.

" I think it would be a narrow-minded view of identity to see it as merely the top left quarter of a nation's flag"
That is pretty impacting though, is it not? To have another nations flag on your own, when trying to be a completely different country? The British treat you like a colony, which is how this conversation started. Me referring to how British politics often associate Canada as their oversea dependency.

Blackflag: "You called me ignorant for not knowing a set of laws designed for a country I'm not in... You pretty much outright said not reading the laws of other nations is ignorant."
I think it's ignorant to make a claim about a country's sovereignty and dismiss an important international law in so doing. If I were to make a claim about the internal political workings of the United States I think it would be fair to say I would be ignorant of many pertinent laws too.

"Outside the commonwealth, it has no bearing on 80% of the world. So yea, I would say the Geneva Conventions have more bearing than the Statute of Westminster. Speaking of which, have you read the Geneva Conventions?"
I have no dispute that they generally are more important (and yes, of course I have), but for a law to have bearing on the whole commonwealth is a pretty big deal. I mean, gosh, even Rwanda has ratified all of the Geneva conventions and the first two protocols, which basically goes to show how meaningless they are when a state actually wants to do something bad. The Statute of Westminster is pivotal to every commonwealth country, every day. Not to undermine the worth of the Geneva conventions totally - their universality is what makes them important.

"Under our constitution, the Indian tribes are sovereign. Yet we regulate their commerce, diplomatic relations, military defense, and approve all laws they pass. Let me ask you, are they still sovereign just because a piece of paper says they are?"
Not completely. Unlike New Zealand, which is completely sovereign. None of those things you mentioned are in any way done by the queen to New Zealand. Tell me what the queen does that reduces our sovereignty.

"Yeah, and who does the governor general answer to? A British monarch."
The point of the office of the governor-general is that they're a stand-in for the queen in the British system. The idea of the governor-general answering to the queen is a tad absurd because that would be the queen answering to the queen.

"Does she formally rule your country? No. But officially you are being ruled by another nations ruler, tied to another nations flag, and an increasingly similar identity."
First of all, it's decreasingly similar. New Zealand has never been more diverse in its history. Second, officially or otherwise, the executive government of New Zealand rules the country. The governor-general, as representative of the queen, reigns over the country. There's an important difference. Third, we are not tied to any flag and can change it whenever we wish. We would not even have to leave the commonwealth to do so - as I showed in the flag debate with nzlockie, lots of commonwealth nations have removed the union jack from their flag. So pretty much every part of this statement is wrong.

"Wikipedia says that the vast majority of your nationality come from Britain and Scotland."
Maybe if you trace everybody's genealogy back many generations, this would be true. The majority will have at least one ancestor from Britain (especially if you include Britain of the 1800s with Ireland) and Scotland. I wouldn't call it vast though - about a third of our country is not of any European ethnicity. Of those who are European, a significant number are Dutch, French or German, who also made settlements in New Zealand. So it's not really that clear cut. Early settlement in the USA was approximately 50% British, and that's if you include the slave trade. Exclude that, and NZ and the USA are comparable. One fifth of New Zealand's population has no British ancestor anywhere. Only 17% of New Zealand would be entitled to a British passport.

"it definitely didn't experience any major immigration booms throughout history outside of Britain."
After the above, we had three waves of immigration. The first came from England, fueled by dreams of prosperity and a modest gold rush. A good number of Chinese came too but they were persecuted a bit. The second came from the Pacific Islands. This was pretty serious back in the 1970s because they clashed with police, leading to some infamous dawn raids. The third came from South Africa and a few other places in the 90s. Now we're seeing a rapidly rising number of Asian immigrants again, particularly from China, which most predict will be a fourth boom shortly. I would further add the vast majority of our people are not immigrants have been here many generations. The majority of us simply call ourselves New Zealanders, myself included. I do have British ancestors but you'd have to go back to my great-grandparents to find the closest ones. And I'm not particularly atypical either.

"I'm saying that it is commonly associated as being strongly British. The culture is probably incredibly diverse, but politically, you are associated with Britain."
I'm saying that association is wrong. Look at us, even politically. We have:
> A different system of government (ie only one house of government)
> Different political parties with VERY different political opinions being popular
> Different ceremonies, holidays etc...

"apparently New Zealanders had British Nationality up until 1977."
This is a complex legal issue, not so much a political one. According to the Treaty of Waitangi, Maori became British citizens (pretty much). The issue was that some were concerned that revoking this might kind of invalidate the treaty. Eventually we all agreed that the treaty still applies because a New Zealand citizenship is way better anyway. There were some other technical things here, but it certainly wasn't because of our true political associations. As the others have already given examples of, we'd already been way ahead of England politically for about a century by then.

"they aren't completely in the same boat as New Zealand."
Never said that they were. Just saying that commonwealth nations can often be quite politically independent.

"The British treat you like a colony, which is how this conversation started. Me referring to how British politics often associate Canada as their oversea dependency."
I should clarify. British people - especially tourists - think that in a minority of cases. British politicians leave New Zealand alone. They haven't messed with us for ages now. The last time we did anything for them was join them in the world wars. We don't even have free trade with them.


PS I'm with nzlockie that the queen is a pretty cool person. I just think she's become so irrelevant to our actual government that there's no point anymore.