"Time to change the flag?"
Changing the flag is often incorrectly associated with a republic. The New Zealand Herald puts it like this in today's editorial:
The debate there was solely about identity, not about wider constitutional matters or the embracing of a republic.The two issues are complimentary, but not the same. The Republican Movement's position on the flag is that any referendum on becoming a republic is not a referendum on the flag - if we want to change the flag, that should only be with the consent of the general public. Of course, most republicans support changing the flag as well as becoming a republic, but it's important to emphasise that a republic does not mean a flag that not everyone agrees to, or is forced upon them.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend![Syndicate content](/misc/feed.png "Comments for \""Time to change the flag?"\""){kind=small}
Comments
The flag debate is interesting though. According to the NZ Herald (foreign owned) editorial the flag needs to be changed. They canvassed the ONZ members, a majority of whom supported a change. This morning the Herald canvassed its own columnists, a majority of whom seem to support a change. Altough interestingly there was only one sports celebrity suggesting change.
Of course the fact that polls consistently show a large majority against flag change.The Auckland market has no competition in the newspaper market, so the Herald can continue its campaign against the NZ flag! It is not representative of the people, on this issue at least.
The "great and good", have shown that their desires do not necessarily correspond with the majority. Of course they too will be in the running for any spanking new Presidential position.
The change to the flag can occur by amendment to the Flags and Emblems Act. Although, if other legislation can be entenched by means of requiring supermajorities or referenda requiring a minimum turnout, I do not see why this Act should not be entrenched. We will need to protect our symbols from demagogues and media vendettas whether foreign-controlled or not.
I imagine that there would be generational cohort demographics that show variations in support if one investigated the question in depth.
"I imagine that there would be generational cohort demographics that show variations in support if one investigated the question in depth." Yes that would be interesting. Agreed, the flag is a non-issue constitutionally.
Also would be interesting to see the support levels amongst first generation immigrant permanent residents. Perhaps we should limit the franchise to NZ citizens as the Aussies limit the franchise to their own citizens now. It may seem unjust to allow an overseas-born foreign citizen, just resident in NZ for a few years equal rights when it comes to determining NZ's constitution and symbols with NZ citizens, especially, for example, a 75 year old NZer born and bred here, and worked for NZ, and mayby even put his life on the line for NZ.
With the republic issue, some have said that support for the monarchy will reduce because, as there is greater support for the status quo amongst older people, with each year more monarchists than republicans will die. But then there have been polls to suggest that republicanism is more of a burning issue for Baby Boomers than for the younger generations, so the window of opportunity for the republic may turn out to be shorter than they would hope for!
Added to which, there is the question of geopolitical orientation. New Zealand is an Asia-Pacific nation, and China looks set to be one of our major trading partners, as is already the case with Australia. On the other hand, while ties of sentiment and cultural past tie us to the United Kingdom, they're already well integrated into the European Union (Eurosceptic Tories to the contrary).
Regardless of degree of conservatism, I still question whether migrants, who are still citizens of other countries, should be allowed to vote. One would have to question the commitment to NZ of people who hold dual or multiple citizenships too.
"cultural past" ...an intriguing term. Although it is not politically correct to admit it, there is a significant British-based culture very much alive in this country, irrespective of UK membership of the EU. I have heard that people suggest more Maori orientation for the flag. Just who has a purely Maori culture in this country, I do not know. Just as the British culture that was brought over with the British founders and settlers, has evolved in this country (and been replenished over the years with continuing contact with a changing UK) so too has Maori culture. If there is to be a more Maori-design orientation to our flag, then a substantial British element must also remain.
As far as "geopolitical orientation" is concerned, I for one sincerely hope we do not adopt the constitutional and political structures of China! One of the reasons that Australia is maintaining and strengthening ties with the USA is so that it may have some counterbalance to the possibilty that an authoritarian communist China may try to become be tempted to use force, military or otherwise, to settle a possible dispute. NZ (along with canada and Australia) is part of the European block as far as the UN security council is concerned. That is quite right as culturally we are still firmly European rather than Asian, recent high levels of Asian immigration nothwithstanding.
One of the reasons that the UK was such a keen supporter of EU enlargement was to make it less easy for comprehensive European integration to take place. Both left and right in the UK I think were more comfortable when it was the EEC - an economic co-operative.
So you don't want to be able to vote yourself? IMHO an immigrant paying taxes in New Zealand has as much right to vote as anyone else. I suspect your position is built on the view that non-Anglo Saxon immigrants don't support the monarchy. To remove someone's right to vote because you don't agree with them is the antithesis of democracy.
How dare they want to serve their country! And create a sense of nationhood and national pride. What terrible people these ONZ folk are. Seriously, big sign of colonial cringe and tall-poppy syndrome there mate.
Hang on... I thought you said the position would be occupied by a politician? Consistency fail... clearly you don't believe your own nonsense.
In the review section of Today's paper, there is mention that the Canadians "threw out" their old red ensign. One of the reasons mentioned was that their American cousins sneered at the "colonial ensign". OK, I would think that that would be one of the reasons why Canadians would keep something...just to be different from the States! Far from throwing out their red ensign, the Ontario Govt immediately snapped it up to use as its own flag. That would indicate that adopting the maple leaf flag was a contentious issue, with great opposition in English-seaking Canada (and luke-warm feelings in French Canada too). Indeed Lester Pearson PM refused to hold a referendum as he realised that rejecting the old red ensign was not popular.
Also a main reason why Pearson adopted the idea to change their flag was because President Nasser of Egypt said that their old flag was too British looking and as a consequence that he did not want Canadian forces as part of a UN force. So, someone who had led a coup to become a dictator in his own country was one of the main stimulants for Canada to change its flag.
Another reason promoted as a reason to change the old Canadian ensign was to appease the French Canadians, who may take offence at the presence of the British union flag. The curent Canadian flag is flown far more often in English Canada than in French Canada, with Quebecois prefering their provincial flag. The maple leaf flag is popular today especially amongst English Canadians. Quebecois separatism is as strong today than ever it was under the old Canadian red ensign!
So, what do we learn from the Canadian experience? If, as some future Prime Minister, you feel that overseas governments look at the NZ flag and misunderstand NZ's place in the World. You will have to introduce a new NZ flag (devoid of British symbols to appease some Maori) (a politician's flag, if you will) by means of legislation and somehow get a parliamentary majority. You will have to avoid a referendum (especially given the lack of desire among NZers for a change). And guess what, when you have this new flag, Maori will still want their own one!
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Canada
Rubbish. Got any data to back that claim up? All I've seen is specific questions on designs (i.e. the Silver Fern flag).
"So you don't want to be able to vote yourself?" Please explain.
Why is a requirement for citizenship the antithesis of democracy? Support for supermajority voting is much greater limitation on democracy.
" I suspect your position is built on the view that non-Anglo Saxon immigrants don't support the monarchy." What ethnic group is the largest op of immigrants?
You've said you are a immigrant holding a British passport (i.e. dual citizenship). Under your argument you're saying you shouldn't be able to vote. Unless of course you think that you deserve special treatment because you're from the "mother country".
Why is a requirement for citizenship the antithesis of democracy?
You're either manipulating what I said or didn't properly read it. It is not a requirement of citizenship that is the antithesis of democracy - your argument is posited on the view that someone who holds different views from yourself should be prevented from voting. That is the antithesis of democracy.
Support for supermajority voting is much greater limitation on democracy.
It's not a limitation on democracy at all. It's a different process of democracy from a normal parliamentary majority. To compare that to stripping immigrants of the right to vote because you disagree with them is laughable.
What ethnic group is the largest op of immigrants?
Op of immigrants? What are you on about?
Sorry you must have misunderstood a (admittedly sometimes garbled )post of mine...Just your basic NZ citizen (single passport holder) here. And I have more Irish and European ancestry than British.
"posited on the view that someone who holds different views from yourself should be prevented from voting" Baloney.....you have made a massive assumption. My argument was based on the citizenship grounds for the franchise as indicating a more than fleeting commitment to the country, whilst a stronger commitment lay elswhere..
"To compare that to stripping immigrants of the right to vote because you disagree with them is laughable." not at all ...immigrants who have become citizens of this country should have the franchise. If you switch countries you should realise that you should not be entitled to full citizenship rights until such time that you actually become a citizen. If you don't like it, then return whence you came.
Which is the largest ethnic group (typo!) of immigrants? I think Anglo-saxons still comprise the largest number of immigrants.
"How dare they want to serve their country!" Gee well I guess they have shown they are good at doing what ever they were good at. And someone holding a political office thought they deserved some reward. These people elevated by honours are now part of an honoured elite. The Herald portrayed them as "paragons" and as such we were to be impressed on their thoughts on the flag.....a topic a good many of them were no more qualified in than the average person. We are supposed to be impressed at the fact most of them wanted a change in flag!
Good on them for excelling at whatever....but to bow down before them as an elite group of paragons - no way....then I am guilty of tall poppy syndrome. The Australian-owned Herald can say whatever it wants.
BTW I have said and still say, more than likely it will be a Politician for President.
I'm sorry, that's not true for most members of ONZ; in any case all the ex-politicians did plenty of other things for NZ outside of politics (Mike Moore and the WTO, for example).
We are supposed to be impressed at the fact most of them wanted a change in flag!
Well, I am. But then I don't cringe at the thoughts and opinions of successful New Zealanders. I don't beleive in equality of opinions either. Some people are better qualified and therefore their opinions count for more than others. Except if they're Royalty, because their only qualification is being born into the right family.
bow down before them as an elite group of paragons - no way....then I am guilty of tall poppy syndrome.
No, you took the opportunity to take a swipe at the ONZ members because apparently they all want to become President... that is tall poppy syndrome. As as moaning about "paragons"; and the fact that the Herald is Australian-owned... is there actually any evidence that there's an Australian influence to this debate?
On massive assumptions sir, I think you doth protest too much. Seriously, you think everyone with dual citizenship has "stronger commitments" elsewhere? Does someone paying income tax to the New Zealand Government not have the right to vote in determining how that tax is spent, or how much they pay?
Which is the largest ethnic group (typo!) of immigrants? I think Anglo-saxons still comprise the largest number of immigrants.
They do. And most have dual citizenship (although the UK government now make it more expensive to get your British Passport renewed than getting NZ citizenship).
"I'm sorry, that's not true for most members of ONZ;" Just who do you think is in control of deciding who should belong to this ONZ elite group?
" Some people are better qualified and therefore their opinions count for more than others." Please...when it comes to something like the flag, the opinion of the unemployed solo-parent is just as valid a well-paid former PM (for several months). The flag belongs to all NZers not just the "Paragons" (by the way, the NZ Herald used that word when describing the ONZ members!). Obviously if it came to international law, Mike Moore would have more of an expert opinion! Do you think whether NZ has a new flag should be left to "experts" rather than the general population in a referendum?
"is there actually any evidence that there's an Australian influence to this debate?" Not that I am aware. I did think it was interesting that this debate is and has been driven in large part by the Herald. I thought it interesting too that the NZ Herald is Australian-owned. Whether the editor, Mr Murphy, is influenced by the owners, I do not know. I am sure the owners may somtimes come up with ways for the NZ Herald to make more money for them...It looks as though the Herald is out-of-step with its readers on this issue. Even The NZ Herald itself admitted that feedback from readers had been running at 66% against change to the flag vs. 33% for. Certainly tabloid-types enjoying stirring the pot, especially if it leads to publicity for their publication.
"No, you took the opportunity to take a swipe at the ONZ members because apparently they all want to become President" Yes I agree I was a bit swiping! However, they no doubt would be in the running for Presidential nominations. I do not know if that would colour any of their opininons on republicanism or the flag.
"I think you doth protest too much"...about commitment to country?....you'd better spell that one out, I am not sure what you're getting at.
"Seriously, you think everyone with dual citizenship has "stronger commitments" elsewhere? " Who knows...they are having a bob both ways..whichever country offers them the most will get their loyalty; they are citizens of another country as a back-up? To use as work opportunity? Do they take advantage of their citizenship in one country and then when things improve in their second country, its "so long" my commitment was only temporary. If residents are NZ citizens in a backup manner when their loyalty may lie with the country of their other citizenship, is it approriate that they should participate in NZ elections. Admittedly this is more of a grey area, as opposed to the simple requirement that NZ citizenship (whether dual or not) should be a prerequisite for the franchise.
"Does someone paying income tax to the New Zealand Government not have the right to vote in determining how that tax is spent, or how much they pay?" Interesting logic. So using this logic, someone paying no net tax should have no rights in how the tax take is spent? That would rule out many in the elite, many a wealthy person who would hide their income by way of trusts and loss-making rental properties and companies. What about superannuitants and beneficiaries? Should their vote have a negative value? So if a beneficiary votes for Mr Locke. Oops, bad example as nobody can vote or has voted for Mr Locke. He got in on the Party List. But if a net beneficiary votes for the Greens, would that translate to a vote subtracted from the Greens. On the other hand maybe there would be a sliding scale... top net tax payers will get 4 votes; someone who pays more than average 2 votes......down to the largest net benificiaries, who would get -4 votes.
"although the UK government now make it more expensive to get your British Passport renewed than getting NZ citizenship" What that has to do with it I don't know...but a quick look online shows that UK passports can be renewed for 10 years, whereas my recently renewed passport lasts for 5 years. So if the UK passport cost is double the NZ cost then the cost per year is the same.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/flag-debate-welcomed-businessman-lloyd-morrison-118076
I could also find a couple of informal website polls with similar results but no other professional-type polls.
Another interesting point....if Maori have an official flag, will that mean they will not be able to vote in a referendum on the other official flag, i.e the NZ flag. Or, will we all be able to vote on the designs for both flags? Or, will all those registered in the Maori electorates get to vote for a Maori design for the Maori flag and all voters registered in the general electorates get to vote on any new design for the NZ flag?
Perhaps we could have three flags....a Maori Flag, a NZ Government Flag, and a Non-Maori Flag.
There is a lack of proper, demographically weighted surveys though.
Seriously, your comment underlines that our current flag is culturally exclusive, as is the Tino rangatiratanga flag.
Yes, your reply shows that.
Err... no. I said opinions, not votes.
Yes I agree I was a bit swiping!
Good...
So ...as long as someone is a taxpayer they should be allowed to vote in this country? Even though they have citizenship and owe allegiance to the government of another country. Makes me wonder ...what would your requirements be for the President of NZ?.....could a President also be a citizen of another country? Or would you allow those who are citizens of other countries to vote to help determine who becomes the President?
May seem a bit at odds with the old "nationalistic" argument of having a president in the first place a little bit redundant.
No, that's not what I said.
Even though they have citizenship and owe allegiance to the government of another country.
I know this is hard to understand, but it is possible under some jurisdictions to have dual citizenship. I've heard arguments that that's what the Queen has, so unless your arguing the Queen should only have allegiance to one state as you expect New Zealand citizens too, how can you reconcile that?
what would your requirements be for the President of NZ?
Well, just look at the Head of State Referenda Bill. You have to be elliable for standing for office in New Zealand 18+, a New Zealand Citizen (i.e. not a permanent resident) - under the Electoral Act 1993 you can't be a dual citizen in public office; hence the President would solely be a NZ citizen.
Sorry, I disagree. I don't particularly like China's existing superpower belligerencies- especially its sixty year occupation of Tibet, funding for the Khmer Rouge after it was deposed, or its funding of Sudan's murderous Islamist regime. However, it is going to become more significant, as US economic and cultural influence wanes, and it has already surpassed the United States as one of our key trading partners. We need to accept that will happen and try to work for constructive international relationships within that framework. And try to comprehend its culture, history and society.
I have little time for the CPC either...even if its economic philosophy is now thoroughly market capitalist and not even remotely socialist in orientation, more for its bullying authoritarianism than anything else.
And for the record, I am somewhat anglophile in terms of my own political past. I first developed my ideas about constitutional reform and republicanism after reading about the UK Charter 88 movement, and as an LGBT rights activist, I am conscious that Britain is slightly ahead of us when it comes to related legislative reforms. Indeed, many NZ centre-left organisations do have some transnational bonds with counterparts in the United Kingdom, more so than in the United States.
However, we're also pragmatists and recognise local cultural and economic trends.
"Well, just look at the Head of State Referenda Bill. " That is dandy...you need to be a sole NZ citizen to hold NZ public office....but you can be voted in by non-citizens. There should be more consistency. Why did they limit public office to citizens only?
The dual citizenship eligibility to vote is one thing....they "only" have split allegiances one of which is to NZ, whereas the non-citizen permanent resident who can vote has an allegiance to the country of his foreign citizenship.
" Does someone paying income tax to the New Zealand Government not have the right to vote in determining how that tax is spent, or how much they pay?" Ergo..if you pay tax you should be able to vote! If you don't pay tax....what then?
If so, then historical continuity may also suggest that liberal democratic states will stay liberal democratic states as they transition from constitutional monarchies to republics, barring some intervening divisive cultural and/or historical cleavage...
Of course we could have a rainbow variety of flags to refelect all the cultures residing on this nation.
If you believe we should have one government, and that government can be traced to the Treaty, then that government has descended from the British Crown. Since 1840, all immgrants have arrived in NZ and are subject to that government. The government controls the use and design of the flag. It may come as no surprise that the government and the structures and predominant culture of our country has a strong British influence stemming from the foundation of modern NZ.
Besides the southern cross on blue background is a geographical feature, which could apply to anyone in the southern hemisphere. However "the cross" aspect may seem exclusive to christians.
The American flag has an exclusive design.....prominence given by the red and white bars to the original states of the USA. They are highlighted as the founding states, just as the Union Jack highlights the role of the British Crown in founding modern NZ after the Treaty of Waitangi.
"God defend NZ" another example of cultural exclusivity. A christian God defending NZ...what about those who are not monotheists, those who believe in Allah, buddha, and atheists. There sould be alternate versions of the national anthem without mention of God. Is the triple star really referring to the three main islands (excluding the Chathams, of course) or is it an allusion to "the trinity".
Of course we could have a rainbow variety of flags to refelect all the cultures residing on this nation.
Or a flag that has culturally neutral symbols that are unique to us, New Zealand.
If you believe we should have one government, and that government can be traced to the Treaty, then that government has descended from the British Crown.
Sure. But that doesn't mean the Union Flag should be part of our flag. I mean, the Brits had to start somewhere themselves. By your reasoning, surely the Union Flag should be made up of the colours of the House of Orange, some elements of the Roman Empire should be included, some Saxon wolves perhaps...
It may come as no surprise that the government and the structures and predominant culture of our country has a strong British influence stemming from the foundation of modern NZ.
Sure. But what does that have to do with the flag? Canada has a British influence system of government, but dropped their red civil flag, Apartheid South Africa adopted a flag that featured the Union Flag, albeit much less prominent.
Besides the southern cross on blue background is a geographical feature, which could apply to anyone in the southern hemisphere. However "the cross" aspect may seem exclusive to christians.
The Crux Australis isn't a Christian symbol - most cultures used it to navigate by (e.g. Polynesians, Aussie Aborigines, Malays, Incas and then Europeans).
The American flag has an exclusive design.....prominence given by the red and white bars to the original states of the USA. They are highlighted as the founding states, just as the Union Jack highlights the role of the British Crown in founding modern NZ after the Treaty of Waitangi.
Heh, well the first flag of the 13 colonies was the Grand Union Flag, which included the Union Flag as it then was... the current US flag is based on this flag. They removed the Union Flag and replaced it with a circle of 13 stars.
Apparently the triple star is a reference to Te Kooti's flag, which featured three stars.
"They removed the Union Flag and replaced it with a circle of 13 stars." All states are represented by the stars in the upper hoist. However the founding states of the USA are given exclusive prominence by being represented by the stripes in the field of the current flag. Despite the very great changes that have taken place in their country, the USA has seen fit to retain a visible honour to that historical foundation of their nation some 230 years ago. Similarly the Hawaian state flag (designed in the 1840's) has a Union Jack in its hoist, dating from when Hawaii (Sandwich Islands) entered into a relationship with the UK.
"Crux Australis isn't a Christian symbol" the way it was seized upon as a symbol by Christian Europeans is not co-incidental! A quick search finds these:
Just look at the images found here: http://precioustreasures.com.au/blog/?p=219
See: http://www.adelaide.catholic.org.au/
http://www.chch.catholic.org.nz/?sid=1009
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/info/subscription
http://www.ceeca.org.au/
Just look at the shield of the Auckland diocese of both Catholic http://www.ciroke.co.nz/
and Anglican church, which has a triple star design.
"Canada has a British influence system of government, but dropped their red civil flag"
It is true by Act of Parliament their ensign was replaced. Anyway Quebec was originally New France, so it could be said that modern Canada had two founding nations...France and the UK....and their provincial flags reflect that by often retaining some form of British symbolism and in the case of Quebec, the French royal fleur-de-lys.
" I mean, the Brits had to start somewhere themselves" Well of course the British flag itself draws on the symbols of the constituent nations. St George have significance to the Anglo -Norman crusader even prior to becoming patron saint in 1300's. Prior to that England had only brief periods as one political entity under the Saxons. I am not sure if the Romans were into flags. However Britannia was used as a symbol by them, which of course the English and British use to this day! And Zealandia her southern daughter is on our coat of arms to this day. I imagine there could have been regional symbols in the Saxon, Celtic and Danish kingdoms. The period post Romans up to C12th is often referred to as the Dark Ages, with the church holding the torch of "civilisation"....hence the importance of the cross as a symbol.
The House of Orange...hmm did not William and Mary reign as joint monarchs through Mary's Stuart bloodline (her father being Chas1). Besides they were taking over the headship of an established concern.
Anyway designing a culturally neutered flag is an interesting diversion.
Interesting too that the Auckland and Wellington Diocese (maybe others too) of the Anglican Church feature triple stars. Te Kooti (Coates) was a devout Christian.
"Te Kooti was a fine Christian, a converted one, but his love of God and the Bible was so great that he carried the Bible around his neck everywhere he went "
http://teaohou.natlib.govt.nz/journals/teaohou/issue/Mao46TeA/c1.html
That happened to the Americans during their revolutionary period. Their rebellion was essentially conservative...they wanted their rights as full Englishmen! The HBO series "John Adams", was an excellent watch for someone like me whose knowledge on that period is deficient. From that series and from what I have read, there was great reluctance on the part of the "patriots" to break from the crown and Britain completely. They wanted the rights that people back in England had, and which were being denied to those in the colonies. An intransigent UK government refused to budge. However even after the upheaval of war their final institutions were mostly modelled on those of Georgian Britain. Much of the future friction was based around the states' and federal rights.
In the USA, only citizens can vote in congressional elections. You need to have been a citizen of the USA for at least 7 years before you can become a member of congress. To become President you must be a natural-born American. That is, someone who was a citizen from the time they were born.
Not originally. They just removed the Union Jack and replaced it with a circle of 13 stars.
"Crux Australis isn't a Christian symbol" the way it was seized upon as a symbol by Christian Europeans is not co-incidental!
Yeah it is.
"I mean, the Brits had to start somewhere themselves" Well of course the British flag itself draws on the symbols of the constituent nations. St George have significance to the Anglo -Norman crusader even prior to becoming patron saint in 1300's.
Exactly. The Union Flag doesn't represent any of these "contributors" to the modern British state.
The House of Orange...hmm did not William and Mary reign as joint monarchs through Mary's Stuart bloodline (her father being Chas1). Besides they were taking over the headship of an established concern.
Sure they "reigned" as Stuarts... but then the Queen is a "Windsor" which was simply invented to hide the fact that the Royals are German, thanks to anti-German xenophobia during World War I. They made a major contribution to Britain's constitutional development.
Anyway designing a culturally neutered flag is an interesting diversion.
Not a diversion, it's my original point...
We are talking about the suitability of current flags. With the current US flag, the original thirteen original states of the US are given an exclusive representation by the bars! In addition they are represented amongst the stars in the upper hoist. When the union jack was replaced by the stars, the number of stars reflected the 13 states...the flag had 2 more stars added in 1795.....now there are 50 stars. Their history is honoured by the pominence given to the riginal 13 states in their current flag.
"exactly. The Union Flag doesn't represent any of these "contributors" to the modern British state"
rubbish!
...as i said...scotland (st andrew), N. Ireland (st patrick) and England (st george) ...sounds like good representation of constituent parts to me! The only country to claim it may not be fully represented is Wales...but I guess it was integrated into england by right of conquest - conquest being recognised by many nations (including the Maori tribes as illustrated by the hoohah over Maungakiekie (one tree hill) and rival iwi) claims!).
William and Mary .....Mary was born a Stuart.....so it was it was no-made up fantasy.
"but then the Queen is a "Windsor" which was simply invented to hide the fact that the Royals are German,"
I have heard it said by some republicans, including on this site, that the current royal family aren't really british they're Geman. The Queen is British through her mother (through many enerations) and 4th generation Brit through the male side of her father's side, 3rd generation brit through the female side of her father. If the queen is still called German, then using the same criteria, about 66+ % of the NZ population (including many people regarding themselves as Maori!) are British.
There are four million opinions on this issue. One way to get clearer is to run online polls on the various options.
I've started to do this with regard to my preferred emblem, the silver fern.
One poll on colourschemes http://johnansell.wordpress.com/flag-poll-1-which-fern-flag/ suggests that people prefer a fern on blue with red stars to plain black.
Another poll of fern designs http://johnansell.wordpress.com/flag-poll-2-which-fern/ shows a clear preference for a classical design over the more angular commercial logos.
Feel free to paste these polls into your own blog or Facebook page.
I'll keep testing the most popular fern and non-fern designs until a clear challenger to the present flag emerges.
Then some daring politician will be able to support the front-runner with confidence.
In many ways the post 1949 (West) German constitution is vastly superior to ours, or Britain's.
It's a good representation of the patron saints, but not the "contributors" as you've previously argued. I mean, St George is also patron saint of Georgia (hence the name of the country in the Caucuses).
With the current US flag, the original thirteen original states of the US are given an exclusive representation by the bars!
Which is a great argument for keeping the Southern Cross, not the Union Flag.
Yes, we really should change the national anthem to something more pluralist...
"I mean, St George is also patron saint of Georgia" From what I have heard, I think English people find it a good symbol to represent them. Indeed the Georgian flag features the cross as well...just like the Southern Cross being a symbol of significance to people in the following countries which have a representaion on their flags: Australia, NZ, Samoa, Papua New Guinea, Brazil, Christmas island, Cocos Is, Magallanes Region Chile, Tierra del Fuego Argentina...not exactly a unique symbol to NZ. The kiwi would be a better identifier....as in the RNZAF roundels ( I guess for you that too is a colonial cringe...being in red, white and blue and based on the British RAF design!)
"Which is a great argument for keeping the Southern Cross, not the Union Flag." It certainly places us in the southern half of the globe! I think the early founders of NZ were happy to live under and identify with the Union Jack. Early NZers and NZ leaders encouraged Britain in its Empire building too....among the keenest supporters of the British Empire! So the Union Jack would be the NZ equivalent of having the 13 stripes in the US flag. It is now a unique NZ symbol.
NZ was at the forefront of unilateral nuclear disarmament by sacrificing its defense alliance with the USA....so maybe we should be at the forefront of unilateral cultural disarmament. We need to remove from "the state" any cultural preference. So all those officially sanctioned inherited British cultural practices sould be eliminated to attain cultural neutrality (CN). All the conventions, practices and customs sourced from Britain should be excised from government. that includes everything from language..law...driving on the left...tea breaks....etc. They all smack of cultural cringe and officially sanctioned cultural exclusivity! The flag, the anthem and the monarchy are only the beginning! Probably the best way to achieve CN is to hand the NZ Government over to the United Nations for them to control as a UN protectorate until they are satisfied that CN eutopia has been achieved.
Post new comment