Welcome to the Nes-atouille Universe

Hana-Rawhiti Kareariki Maipi-Clarke, the youngest MP in Aotearoa, starts a haka to protest the first vote on a bill reinterpreting the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi

This is a good outline of just what is so repellent about the Treaty Principles Bill.

And further to that, there's a huge hīkoi coming. Thousands of people are walking from the top of the North Island (and the bottom of the South) to Parliament in Wellington. They should have arrived for this debate, but like the toadies they are the Government brought it forward so they would miss it. They're still coming though.

the kraken and the merman

I haven't made a fandom powerpoint in about twenty years, but listening to Cabin Pressure again awoke something in me.

Ineffable may! Day 7. Old fashioned waltz

THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (1970) dir. Billy Wilder

this is sending me into oblivion right now askjnd

i cannot find the post/tweet atm but that post that's like "[a] falls first but [b] falls harder isn't about [b] loving [a] more, it's about [a] getting so used to their (apparently unrequited) feelings it becomes the dull press of a bruise, versus [b] getting hit with a Feelings Realization Truck and immediately going completely insane about it. if they don't get to marry [a] TOMORROW they're going to start BITING PEOPLE" and i put tags like "this is tedependent. to me" and i am STILL THINKING ABOUT THIS. RANDOMLY AND UNPROMPTED. trent falls in love with ted first: and the love stays, but it becomes a low, constant white noise in his life, a background hum he can almost tune out; it's a candle flame burning gently in his chest, warm and constant but it still burns when he touches it. the dull press of a bruise. the resignation and acceptance that these feelings will never be returned, the love that asks for nothing and just enjoys being near him. meanwhile sometime in post-canon fix-it land or something ted's minding his own business when the anvil of Wait, Fuck, Am I In Love With Trent?? drops on his head with a loud BONK and he wakes up with a metaphorical goose egg and the revelation that wait, fuck, he IS in love with trent. so trent's over here with the slow, soft violins, fine with his little gay tragedy, because it doesn't feel so much like a tragedy when he's surrounded by a community he genuinely feels accepted in, and he's okay with the fact ted will never want him like that. and then in the next room ted is BARELY restrained from simply kool-aid-manning through the wall to propose to him on the spot. he's gonna start biting people and shaking them around like a dog with a chew toy if he doesn't get to kiss trent crimm on the mouth STAT. no but silliness aside really i can't stop thinking about that feeling of just accepting what the future has in store for you, that you'll never have what you truly want, that there's no hope, but getting to a place where you're okay with that, and then the love of your life/guy of your dreams suddenly is like "okay so i've thought about this long and hard and it turns out i'm like, mega in love with you. thoughts??????" i think ted has no idea trent's in love with him in this scenario btw. he's just hoping for the best. trent's his close friend and soooo beautiful and wonderful and maybe they could go on a date? (vibrating bc he cannot say he wants to spend the rest of his life with this man on a first date even if they have been friends for years) . what does trent even do with that. also if ted proposed to him he'd say yes

if i had a nickel for every time rebecca sugar’s ratatouille porn became relevant, i’d have like 5 nickels at this point

REBECCA SUGAR’S WHAT?

I really love this scene in season of mists chapter 1.

this interview was ksksksk

Ok so AO3 has just announced changes to their terms of service. Mostly it's just rewording ambiguous phrasing and clarifying some points. But they are also changing the archive warning 'Underage' to 'Underage Sex' (because some people were using it for like, teenagers kissing or for underage drinking, which isn't a massive problem but it's not what the tag is for)

It's a minor change and should be a non issue, but I've seen people saying that AO3 isn't requiring you to tag underage sex anymore, which is categorically untrue. I do however know why they think this, and its a combination of not fully reading the updates and a misunderstanding of how the archive tag system works in the first place.

You can find the full wording on AO3 itself but the relevant part is as follows: "If you have a work that carries the "Underage" warning and you don't want it to display the "Underage Sex" label, you can replace it with the "Creator Chose Not to Use Archive Warnings" label at any time."

Any fic that currently has the 'Underage' archive warning will be updated to have the 'Underage Sex' warning instead. If for some reason you don't want that, what the above statement is saying is that you can use 'Creator Chose Not to Use Archive Warnings' instead.

Makes sense. However, if you don't understand the archive warning system, you might interpret that as not being required to tag underage sex.

The way it works is that there are five archive warnings: 'Underage', 'Rape/Non-con', 'Graphic Depictions of Violence', 'Major Character Death', and 'Creator Chose Not to Use Archive Warnings'. There's also 'No Archive Warnings Apply', which is used when none of the others are relevant.

The site classifies the first four as specific archive warnings (meaning they refer to a specific topic) and 'Creator Chose Not to Use Archive Warnings' as a non-specific warning, which means that a work tagged with it could contain any archive warning.

It can also be used where you might want an additional tag for a non-archive warning (for example, Drug use), but don't want to tag it for spoiler reasons. This is a perfectly acceptable use of the tag.

The issue is, some people think that's the only thing its meant to be used for, and any archive warnings have to be tagged no matter what. If this hypothetical person came across a work containing major character death, but the only archive warning was 'Creator Chose Not to Use Archive Warnings', they would consider the work incorrectly tagged.

So then, if this person read ToS update, and found the part about replacing 'Underage'/'Underage Sex' with 'Creator Chose Not to Use Archive Warnings', they could easily interpret that as the site no longer requiring underage sex to be tagged. In actual fact, underage sex is still a required warning, you just don't have to use the specific archive warning. You can use the non-specific one instead. (To be fully clear, this has always been the case)

Nothing is actually changing in terms of what content has to be tagged, it's literally only the wording of the archive warning, because it was a little ambiguous before.

😳..

I know most of tumblr is thinking about the USA right now. but fuck the nz government right now too. tomorrow, the treaty principles bill, the 'worst, most comprehensive breach of Te Tiriti in modern times' is being introduced to parliament early, because there were activations planned country wide and the cowards decided to pull it forwards. fuck this government. a friend of mine had to go home early, crying. I've been in shock all day since it came out.

check on your Māori friends, e hoa mā. see what they need. see how you can help. everyday, we see and experience racism. from people around us, up to our government. community care will save us.

in case people wanted a source

The Spinoff has a pretty good debunking of the supposed “rationale” behind the bill in this opinion piece by Carwyn Jones, the academic quoted in that Guardian article above:

There’s also this newsletter from this morning that explains the current situation pretty well:

For people overseas, you know how it's a popular simplification that here in Aotearoa New Zealand we did way better than every other colonial nation when it came to our relations with the indigenous population?

Well, for the sake of communication, let's ignore that that's actually bollocks. We've got our cool Treaty that made us better. The Treaty Principles Bill seeks to redefine how our Government follows that Treaty. How, you might ask? Why, by COMPLETELY IGNORING LITERALLY EVERYTHING IT SAYS of course!

The bill is being pushed by the ACT party, who are treating the Treaty of Waitangi like the USA's founding document, as if every founding document ever written exists to codify a set of rights for all citizens equally. That is not what Te Tiriti is! Te Tiriti is a document codifying the relationship between Crown and Māori, in such a way that at least the Te Reo version explicitly ensures that Māori are not erased.

It is not a founding document meant to lay down human rights. Know what does that here? The Human Rights Act. The Treaty is what says "hey you pākehā, you can settle here, just don't fucking trample māori in the process."

And yes, it's more complicated. The Crown have never followed Te Tiriti. Not properly. And the English language version was explicitly written not to be a correct translation and by the English text the Crown has more rights than the chiefs agreed to. But putting that aside for a second, we have a treaty, and in recent decades there has been a push to do so, in part by the establishment of the Treaty Principles by the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 which laid out specifically how the Government is meant to follow the Treaty and uphold Māori rangatiratanga, which is most widely agreed to mean sovereignty. The following are the 1975 Principles:

Basically, Māori did not cede sovereignty, they keep their land and treasures, and the Crown is supposed to be in partnership and consult Māori. Māori are guaranteed a voice in government and in decisions. That's why we have Māori electorates in our elections! Māori, as per current law, are guaranteed representation in Parliament. Whether or not it's enough is another topic, but they're at least guaranteed something.

ACT, through the Treaty Principles Bill seeks to go in the complete opposite direction. They have three principles they want to replace the 1975 ones with:

Principle 1 is pretty insidious - because the New Zealand Government means, in this context, the representation of the Crown. Whom there has been much controversy over lately, with the Prime Minister and head of ACT's coalition partner National saying - against the academic consensus - that the Crown has absolute sovereignty. The point of Principle 1 is to erase the idea that Māori have any sovereignty over themselves, or that they are in any way their own group outside of a Crown hegemony.

Principle 2 is again pretty insidious. It puts all property rights on equal standing. I might point out that Māori lost 74% of the entire North Island between 1860 and 2000 (having had 80% of it in 1860, and at most 4% of it in 2000), and what of it was gifted to the Crown for specific purposes was not returned after those purposes were done. When does this Bill decide "their land" begins in time? Now, when almost all Māori land has been stolen? After all, this Government have recently removed the rule that said Māori could still claim seashore rights despite not having had exclusive use of it which the criteria normally requires, if their land had been stolen. Y'know, that thing that typically prevents one from having exclusive use of one's land! And they're using their recent Fast Track Proposals Bill to cut Māori out of decisions that affect what land they are recognised as having. Under these rules, an Iwi has to defer to the Crown wanting to build a pipeline through fucking wāhi tapu (sacred land) (WHICH BY THE WAY IS NOT SOMETHING I MADE UP, THAT'S A RECENT NEWS STORY) because they would have no codified right to disagree, especially not under the Fast Track Bill which literally allows the Crown to decide arbitrarily that the Iwi is being too precious and ignore their objections entirely.

The story I linked? To illustrate this, the above two principles seek to unequivocally side with the Council, the Crown, on the pipeline, and remove all avenues for Tūhourangi, Ngāti Tūmatawera, to fight back and protect their land from a Crown body that does not in any way respect them or the graves of their tūpuna. Because well, they can say nope, the government has a right to do this, and the land belongs to the Council, never mind it was stolen.

Principle 3 is just a dogwhistle. That's not the point of the Treaty, not remotely, and it's already covered by the Human Rights Act. In fact, it goes directly against the Treaty, because, as is painfully fucking obvious, the whole POINT was that Māori were not culturally annihilated by the hegemony of a much larger power! The whole point was to make explicit that Māori, as per this agreement, have certain fucking rights to make sure they're not overwhelmed!

And it's obvious that this interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi removes literally the entire point of the Treaty. The Treaty Principles Bill is one side of a codified relationship seeking to unilaterally eviscerate the protections supposedly built into that relationship for the other side. The Crown signed a contract, saying they had to respect Māori. And now that progress is meaning it might be slightly followed, the Crown's representatives in the coalition Government are seeking to make sure the Crown no longer has to follow any part of that contract.

If New Zealand is supposedly better than other colonial nations, this government is trying to do everything possible to change that and get rid of the one thing that demands the Crown and Iwi be equal. The one thing that means we did better? Yeah, that is the thing they're trying to get rid of.