Maori "King" refuses to meet the the future King of England

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26435942

I presume the "king" is the one in the suit and no leaves in his hair. I am far from being the keenest Royalist here on AB...quite the opposite. But hasn't this chap snubbed Wills and Britain in general over this affair ? I call it *** rude !

[boxtops]

The article says not so much that he doesn't want to meet them, just that he thinks 90 minutes is too short a time to do justice to any meeting.

[vulcan42]

Sounds to me he thinks 90 minutes is not long enough for them to pay homage to his status.

[jno]

I don't know why you put "king" in quote marks: he is at least elected, rather in the old Anglo-Saxon way (though like the Anglo-Saxons they almost always go for the family heir). The downside with democracy is it leaves some people free to grumble that he doesn't represent them, just as Cameron doesn't represent me...

And like the British monarch he has no constitutional significance, so it's figurehead-to-figurehead.

[jackthehat]

As he has contacted Buckingham Palace directly with an explanation, I don't see that this can be viewed as snub nor do I expect the Palace nor the Cambridge's will see it as such.

[anotheoldgit]

'Racist'.

[jackthehat]

....apologies for the unnecessary apostrophe....

[jackthehat]

As he is one of the 'indigenous' peoples of NZ, surely he is free to have an opinion, favourable or otherwise, as to visitors to his shores, AOG?

You value the same privilege in this country.

[askyourgran]

The welcoming ceremony takes longer than 90 mins, the King and his people would not be able to do the ritual ceremonies in that time so Wills and Kate will not get the full treatment which to them may be a slight. Petty I know but that is how some people operate.

[ToraToraTora]

Bit of a non story mikey, he just wanted more than 90 mins.

[anotheoldgit]

jackthehat

/// As he is one of the 'indigenous' peoples of NZ, surely he is free to have an opinion, favourable or otherwise, as to visitors to his shores, AOG? ///

Oh, if only the indigenous peoples of this country also had the same 'freedom'.

[jno]

what, the Celts?

[sp1814]

The only appropriate response:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljac8v0jZp1qdmgu3o1_500.jpg

[sp1814]

AOG

"Oh, if only the indigenous peoples of this country also had the same 'freedom'"

Do you mean just the white people?

Why's that?

[woofgang]

weren't there picts before celts?

[ludwig]

It's fair enough. If he doesn't want to meet them for whatever reason, he doesn't have to.

The only people who might care are the Maoris, who may think he's embarrassing them.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// Do you mean just the white people? ///

Well that would be a fairly accurate description, seeing that we have always been an European country.

Would you argue that the indigenous peoples of Africa are not black or at least dark skinned?

[sp1814]

AOG

Why should the rights of White Britons hold more sway than those of others races???

Surely a man or woman, say from the Carribean, who came to Britain 60 years ago, is just as valid as any white Briton?

Or perhaps not...I don't know what you think.

Can you clarify?

[LazyGun]

"As he is one of the 'indigenous' peoples of NZ, surely he is free to have an opinion, favourable or otherwise, as to visitors to his shores, AOG? ///

Oh, if only the indigenous peoples of this country also had the same 'freedom'"

As you have been told repeatedly, AoG, you are perfectly free, in this country, to hold any opinion you like on anyone you please. You are perfectly free to dislike anyone, for an reason, rational or irrational, be it colour of their skin, their gender, or their perceived sexual orientation. But just as you have the absolute right to hold any opinion of others, they in turn have the right to hold an opinion about you.

But in no country in the world do you have an absolute right to express those opinions in public without any restrictions at all.

In every country in the world,publicly expressing your opinion is subject to a range of restrictions - libel, slander,obscenity, harassment, and sedition, and also incitement to hatred or violence.

So - you are even allowed to say you do not like someone simply because you have a stereotypical dislike of their race, or their gender or that they are an immigrant - in such circumstances though, other people would be equally allowed to exercise their right of free though and speech to describe you as a bigot.

Such a response would not mean that your rights of free speech or free expression had been curtailed or infringed, either. It would just mean that others were exercising their freedoms of thought and expression too.

Of course, in expressing your opinion, your words might get you into trouble if they were considered slanderous, or an incitement to commit violence or a hate crime, or if they were considered harassment.

So - go ahead, knock yourself out. But quit bleating that you do not have freedom of thought or freedom of speech in this country. You do. You just might not like the responses you get, or the legal consequences, should you express yourself in an inflammatory manner.

[whiskeryron]

Nice one LG.