Sean is a real crusader. Poor brown people must not be allowed to go out to gigs and enjoy themselves. The thought of someone worse off than me getting a few dollars off a ticket is a national disgrace. How entitled they are to expect the same standard of living as I have.
Might be time to contact the Trump administration and see if they can put some sanctions on NZ until it is removed out of every aspect of government and tax payers money . Should wake the PM up a bit and rattle the cage .
Racism = Colonizing an already populated part of the world and treating the people who already lived their as inferior. Racism ≠ Discounting tickets for the descendants of those same people ^^^ still affected by that discrimination.
Pasifika people were being offered discounts for tickets because they are statistically the least able to afford them. Calling that racism is to diminish the fact that it was discrimination against brown people that made them more likely to be poorer in the first place. Take a step backwards and notice how Sean and Chris are framing the narrative. Remember that The Platform is payed for by the richest family in New Zealand.
Why does Sean only focus on ethnicity when the person is of colour? But when Jacinda was wrecking the country she was just a labour politician and nothing about her being European? Lol a tad hypocritical isnt it
The grifters framed their ticket prices that way. If people are struggling then buying tickets to a music venue should be the last priority. I could not afford such luxuries, yet cannot play the brown card for a discount. This is racism nothing more.
@@Winstonsmithsalias If people are struggling to pay the bills, attacking people who offer them support (discounted tickets) seems like a counterproductive use of time to me. That is spiteful at best, and at worst reinforces the inequality already present. Chris is attacking people who were quite literally just making a concert more accessible for a particular group of people. Who misses out because some of the guests got a discount? Absolutely no one. He's not defending anyone, he's just a asshole.
Perhaps its because giving discounts to members of the poorest community is not actually racial discrimination. Theres actually a name for it. Charity.
@drednorzt They are poor by their own decisions. When Maori leave NZ they become successful because they have to work to succeed. Here they just put their hand out
@@martinward7239 Turn that equation around and look at it backwards. Might it be possible that Māori find it harder to be successful here (as opposed to overseas) because here they experience the effects of discrimination they otherwise don't in other places? Food for thought. btw I'm not even sure why you mentioned Māori. It was a Pasifika gig with discounts for other Pasifika.
Change tangata moana to white and tangata te triti to non white and watch those saying it’s okay, squeal. It’s wrong wrong wrong and the people giving them public funds need to be either sacked or have the grants examined much closer.
Tickets for the event, featuring artists such as King Kapisi, were sold at three price points. “Early bird (for all Tangata): $15, Tangata Moana (for our Māori and Pacific Tangata): $20 and Tangata Tiriti (for our allies): $30.”
HRC and Brown Town............ooh err, all a bit too twee really. Brown Town are as they describe, wallowing in the brown stuff, like, don't shite in your own backyard boys and girls. Good to see you back Sean, cheers, here's to '25.
What a load of drama over nothing. It wasn't a seated event, so it wasn't as if people were going to miss out. If someone didn't want to spend $2 more then don't go - simple! It sounds like even small towns are being bullied into doing what racists insist upon
The issue with race based Ticket prices are you are in short, trying to entice people that would otherwise not attend. And this will always end up attracting a bad crowd...Bad shit will happen and the silent majority will vote with their wallets next time. Its just not good business sense in a field were just breaking even is a struggle.
Would you be ok with racially tiered ticket prices favouring White people? Sean is merely calling out the hypocrisy from all these woke people, as they are the ones obsessed with race.
@@yingle6027 Would anybody offer cheaper ticket prices to white people in NZ? No. Because white people haven't been discriminated against for 200 years. If you believe that giving a leg up to people who have experienced racism, is another form of racism, then you don't understand what racism is in the first place.
We wouldn’t be discussing it, if these groups didn’t keep doing it. Racism doesn’t get a free pass. If these activist grifters said discounts for all people who might struggle to pay full price, then fine, but they went full activist intersectional retard.
We ALL have Treaties with the Crown which specifically enshrine Equal Rights, Advantages and Privileges for ALL subjects. The Crown was a "Treaty Partner" (to utilise woke terminology) with many other "Treaty Parties" well before Maori were added as English subjects in the Maori version of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. These Treaties include the 1215 Magna Carta, the 1267 Treaty of Montgomery (Wales), the 1706 Treaty of Union (Scotland) and the 1800 Treaty of Union (Ireland), and their respective enactments. In 1840 the "Crown" was already a "Partnership" with several "First Nations Partners" - ie. the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.The Union Flag was specifically created by Article 1 of the 1706 Treaty of Union to represent the Union of "Treaty Parties". The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi was specifically signed over the Union Flag to represent this. This is like a going concern which has several existing partners, taking on another partner and absorbing their concern into a greater whole - with each partner being on an exactly equal footing. Article 1 of the 1707 Act of Union (Scotland) states;"That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall, upon the first Day of May next ensuing the Date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great-Britain, and that the Ensigns Armorial of the said united Kingdom, be such as her Majesty shall appoint; and the Crosses of St. Andrew and St. George be conjoined in such a manner as her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards, and Ensigns, both at Sea and Land." Several Articles of these Treaties require that all citizens have equal rights, advantages and privileges and that no new party added should be given exclusive ones. For example, Article 4 of the 1707 Act of Union (Scotland) states;"That all the Subjects of the united Kingdom of Great-Britain shall, from and after the Union, have full Freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation, to and from any Port or Place within the said united Kingdom, and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging; and that there be a Communication of all other Rights, Privileges, and Advantages, which do or may belong to the Subjects of either Kingdom, except where it is otherwise expressly agreed in these Articles." Also for Example, Article 6 of the 1801 Act of Union (Ireland) states;"That it be the sixth article of union, that his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain and Ireland shall, from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and one, be entitled to the same privileges, and be on the same footing as to encouragements and bounties on the like articles, being the growth, produce, or manufacture of either country respectively, and generally in respect of trade and navigation in all ports and places in the united kingdom and its dependencies; and that in all treaties made by his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, with any foreign power, his Majesty’s subjects of Ireland shall have same the privileges, and be on the same footing as his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain." As above, these Treaties bound, and continue to bind, the Crown and all of its successors, such as the "Crown of New Zealand". Several legal precedents have been made dating back to at least the Union of the Crowns of England and Scotland in 1603 confirming that subjects under the Crown must be treated equally. This includes Calvin's Case (1608), 77 ER 377, (1608) Co Rep 1a, also known as the Case of the Postnati. The Crown cannot even begin to envision unequally restricting, or granting more, Rights, Advantages and Privileges of one or more "Treaty Parties" without being in breach of these Treaties. However, the Crown has increasingly been acting in breach of these Treaties and needs to immediately honour them. For example, Article 25 of the 1707 Act of Union (Scotland) states;"That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom, so far as they are contrary to, or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles, or any of them, shall, from and after the Union, cease, and become void, and shall be so declared to be, by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms." The pre and post 1840 "Treaty Parties" who have equal Rights, Advantages and Privileges within the Crown of New Zealand include English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Australian, Dutch, French, Moriori, Maori, and subjects of the Realm of New Zealand. The Crown has no doubt learnt its lesson when historically trying to breach the rights of some of these subjects. Rather than the "Treaty" situation being like two halves of an apple (ie the Crown and Maori), the real situation is like an orange, wherein each of the segments represent the numerous equal "Treaty Partners" and the protective and encapsulating skin represents the Crown. The only question is how much power the "Crown" has (ie. how thick is the skin of the orange) but each "First Nation" "Treaty Partner" segment is identical. New "communities" can be envisioned as the new growth segments between the original segments (as in an orange) but always within the protective skin of the "Crown" and its powers. In fact it is these earlier Treaties, and especially the 1706 Treaty of Union (Scotland) which specifically defines the "Crown" and who exactly reigns. If these earlier treaties are breached by the "Crown", tried to be ignored by "Treaty Deniers", or an attempt made to try and undermine or demote their relative importance by "Treaty Bigots", then the legitimacy of the current monarchs themselves would be jepordised (and the Monarch over the Water - ie the Stuart dynasty, would therefore need to be re-established). There can be no apartheid under these Treaties and the time has come to honour them equally.
They are entitled to charge what they like just like any business. And its not based on ethnicity its based on equity. Proven statistically but this clown will never admit it. And all these clowns know this.
This is what people like Seymour and Jones are fighting against - Using ethnicity as a measure of entitlement and privilege.
Sean is a real crusader. Poor brown people must not be allowed to go out to gigs and enjoy themselves. The thought of someone worse off than me getting a few dollars off a ticket is a national disgrace. How entitled they are to expect the same standard of living as I have.
Well done to The Platform for highlighting this kind on nonsense !
When oh when is this woke crap going to end
Might be time to contact the Trump administration and see if they can put some sanctions on NZ until it is removed out of every aspect of government and tax payers money . Should wake the PM up a bit and rattle the cage .
Utterly disgraceful. Well done Sean for shining the light.
Yeah! How dare a couple of brown people in Christchurch got a discount on a gig ticket! Woe is me!
What a joke,racism is racism
Its almost as racist as Sean focusing on politicains ethnicity but only when theyre of colour 🤷
Racism = Colonizing an already populated part of the world and treating the people who already lived their as inferior.
Racism ≠ Discounting tickets for the descendants of those same people ^^^ still affected by that discrimination.
@@ninjajunior4422grow up
Racism pure and simple
Pasifika people were being offered discounts for tickets because they are statistically the least able to afford them. Calling that racism is to diminish the fact that it was discrimination against brown people that made them more likely to be poorer in the first place.
Take a step backwards and notice how Sean and Chris are framing the narrative. Remember that The Platform is payed for by the richest family in New Zealand.
Why does Sean only focus on ethnicity when the person is of colour? But when Jacinda was wrecking the country she was just a labour politician and nothing about her being European? Lol a tad hypocritical isnt it
The grifters framed their ticket prices that way. If people are struggling then buying tickets to a music venue should be the last priority. I could not afford such luxuries, yet cannot play the brown card for a discount. This is racism nothing more.
What a load of bullshit @@drednorzt
@@Winstonsmithsalias If people are struggling to pay the bills, attacking people who offer them support (discounted tickets) seems like a counterproductive use of time to me. That is spiteful at best, and at worst reinforces the inequality already present.
Chris is attacking people who were quite literally just making a concert more accessible for a particular group of people. Who misses out because some of the guests got a discount? Absolutely no one. He's not defending anyone, he's just a asshole.
How is this even legal?
We have laws against racial discrimination. Any reason we're not enforcing them?
I think we all know why don’t we?
Perhaps its because giving discounts to members of the poorest community is not actually racial discrimination. Theres actually a name for it. Charity.
@drednorzt They are poor by their own decisions. When Maori leave NZ they become successful because they have to work to succeed. Here they just put their hand out
Discriminating for or against people on the basis of their race IS racial discrimination - by definition. Charity is charity, racism is racism.
@@martinward7239 Turn that equation around and look at it backwards. Might it be possible that Māori find it harder to be successful here (as opposed to overseas) because here they experience the effects of discrimination they otherwise don't in other places? Food for thought.
btw I'm not even sure why you mentioned Māori. It was a Pasifika gig with discounts for other Pasifika.
Human rights commission, who pays them, stop paying them if they can't do their bloody job properly and without bias, disgusting behaviour from them
Change tangata moana to white and tangata te triti to non white and watch those saying it’s okay, squeal. It’s wrong wrong wrong and the people giving them public funds need to be either sacked or have the grants examined much closer.
Some humans have more rights than others. Force Maori and Pacifica to identify as victims to leverage greater rights.
It shows who the racists and self loathing are.
Tickets for the event, featuring artists such as King Kapisi, were sold at three price points. “Early bird (for all Tangata): $15, Tangata Moana (for our Māori and Pacific Tangata): $20 and Tangata Tiriti (for our allies): $30.”
Brown town pffft cringe.
Corruption and racism against NZers 🇳🇿🇳🇿🇳🇿 fight the good fight, keep up the good work.
Maybe what they should have done was offer cheaper rates if you were on a benefit or if you have an annual income under x amount?.
but why?
Freedom of information requests?
Melissa Derby is turning out to be a disappointment.
Those with bar codes just walk through no charge.
Why is it even called Brown Town?
Because it's catchy
The kiddie price..enforces the idea you need..
Re subbed, your being f'd with
HRC and Brown Town............ooh err, all a bit too twee really. Brown Town are as they describe, wallowing in the brown stuff, like, don't shite in your own backyard boys and girls. Good to see you back Sean, cheers, here's to '25.
Did you enjoy your rate rise, don't get fooled again..
What a load of drama over nothing. It wasn't a seated event, so it wasn't as if people were going to miss out. If someone didn't want to spend $2 more then don't go - simple! It sounds like even small towns are being bullied into doing what racists insist upon
Ben and i. When was the wedding karen😮😂😂😂😂
Grow up
The issue with race based Ticket prices are you are in short, trying to entice people that would otherwise not attend. And this will always end up attracting a bad crowd...Bad shit will happen and the silent majority will vote with their wallets next time.
Its just not good business sense in a field were just breaking even is a struggle.
😂
Brown town 😂😂
Ok im starting a club called White town
Give people discounts for being white and watch the Human Rights Commission pounce!
I could never be your woman...
It really is simple pay it no mind and don't waste your money on this non sense
This tossa Sean is obsessed with race - needs to talk race in order to feel adequate
Would you be ok with racially tiered ticket prices favouring White people? Sean is merely calling out the hypocrisy from all these woke people, as they are the ones obsessed with race.
Are you mentally deficient? He wouldn't have a story if all this racist crap wasn't happening.
Same as yourself hanz.
@@yingle6027 Would anybody offer cheaper ticket prices to white people in NZ? No. Because white people haven't been discriminated against for 200 years.
If you believe that giving a leg up to people who have experienced racism, is another form of racism, then you don't understand what racism is in the first place.
We wouldn’t be discussing it, if these groups didn’t keep doing it. Racism doesn’t get a free pass. If these activist grifters said discounts for all people who might struggle to pay full price, then fine, but they went full activist intersectional retard.
🙊🙊🙊
We ALL have Treaties with the Crown which specifically enshrine Equal Rights, Advantages and Privileges for ALL subjects.
The Crown was a "Treaty Partner" (to utilise woke terminology) with many other "Treaty Parties" well before Maori were added as English subjects in the Maori version of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi.
These Treaties include the 1215 Magna Carta, the 1267 Treaty of Montgomery (Wales), the 1706 Treaty of Union (Scotland) and the 1800 Treaty of Union (Ireland), and their respective enactments.
In 1840 the "Crown" was already a "Partnership" with several "First Nations Partners" - ie. the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.The Union Flag was specifically created by Article 1 of the 1706 Treaty of Union to represent the Union of "Treaty Parties". The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi was specifically signed over the Union Flag to represent this.
This is like a going concern which has several existing partners, taking on another partner and absorbing their concern into a greater whole - with each partner being on an exactly equal footing.
Article 1 of the 1707 Act of Union (Scotland) states;"That the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall, upon the first Day of May next ensuing the Date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great-Britain, and that the Ensigns Armorial of the said united Kingdom, be such as her Majesty shall appoint; and the Crosses of St. Andrew and St. George be conjoined in such a manner as her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards, and Ensigns, both at Sea and Land."
Several Articles of these Treaties require that all citizens have equal rights, advantages and privileges and that no new party added should be given exclusive ones. For example, Article 4 of the 1707 Act of Union (Scotland) states;"That all the Subjects of the united Kingdom of Great-Britain shall, from and after the Union, have full Freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation, to and from any Port or Place within the said united Kingdom, and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging; and that there be a Communication of all other Rights, Privileges, and Advantages, which do or may belong to the Subjects of either Kingdom, except where it is otherwise expressly agreed in these Articles."
Also for Example, Article 6 of the 1801 Act of Union (Ireland) states;"That it be the sixth article of union, that his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain and Ireland shall, from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and one, be entitled to the same privileges, and be on the same footing as to encouragements and bounties on the like articles, being the growth, produce, or manufacture of either country respectively, and generally in respect of trade and navigation in all ports and places in the united kingdom and its dependencies; and that in all treaties made by his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, with any foreign power, his Majesty’s subjects of Ireland shall have same the privileges, and be on the same footing as his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain."
As above, these Treaties bound, and continue to bind, the Crown and all of its successors, such as the "Crown of New Zealand". Several legal precedents have been made dating back to at least the Union of the Crowns of England and Scotland in 1603 confirming that subjects under the Crown must be treated equally. This includes Calvin's Case (1608), 77 ER 377, (1608) Co Rep 1a, also known as the Case of the Postnati.
The Crown cannot even begin to envision unequally restricting, or granting more, Rights, Advantages and Privileges of one or more "Treaty Parties" without being in breach of these Treaties. However, the Crown has increasingly been acting in breach of these Treaties and needs to immediately honour them.
For example, Article 25 of the 1707 Act of Union (Scotland) states;"That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom, so far as they are contrary to, or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles, or any of them, shall, from and after the Union, cease, and become void, and shall be so declared to be, by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms."
The pre and post 1840 "Treaty Parties" who have equal Rights, Advantages and Privileges within the Crown of New Zealand include English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Australian, Dutch, French, Moriori, Maori, and subjects of the Realm of New Zealand. The Crown has no doubt learnt its lesson when historically trying to breach the rights of some of these subjects.
Rather than the "Treaty" situation being like two halves of an apple (ie the Crown and Maori), the real situation is like an orange, wherein each of the segments represent the numerous equal "Treaty Partners" and the protective and encapsulating skin represents the Crown. The only question is how much power the "Crown" has (ie. how thick is the skin of the orange) but each "First Nation" "Treaty Partner" segment is identical.
New "communities" can be envisioned as the new growth segments between the original segments (as in an orange) but always within the protective skin of the "Crown" and its powers.
In fact it is these earlier Treaties, and especially the 1706 Treaty of Union (Scotland) which specifically defines the "Crown" and who exactly reigns. If these earlier treaties are breached by the "Crown", tried to be ignored by "Treaty Deniers", or an attempt made to try and undermine or demote their relative importance by "Treaty Bigots", then the legitimacy of the current monarchs themselves would be jepordised (and the Monarch over the Water - ie the Stuart dynasty, would therefore need to be re-established).
There can be no apartheid under these Treaties and the time has come to honour them equally.
They are entitled to charge what they like just like any business. And its not based on ethnicity its based on equity. Proven statistically but this clown will never admit it. And all these clowns know this.
Go read a book called animal farm 👍
The only clown is you.
@m-egreenisland7086 you assume she can read. She probably thinks literary is white supremacy.
Wake up simone, look up 'equity' my dear, and learn.
Explain inequity, without quoting Antonio Gramsci’s Marxist ideology, which is the intersectional model you seem to have accepted.